First I am going to do my best to
articulate what I believe to be Max Black’s relatively comprehensive
explication of the structure of a metaphor.
I am then going to explain what I believe the shortcomings of his analysis. From this criticism I will derive what I
believe the value of metaphor. I will
then address what I believe to be the most challenging flaw with my proposed
value of a metaphor. Finally I will
conclude my structure of metaphor.
In his paper
entitled “Metaphor,” Max Black presents a philosophical understanding of a
common literary tool. According to
Black’s structure there are two aspects of a metaphor, the focus and the
frame. The focus is the word that is
being used metaphorically. The frame is
the remainder of the sentence. In order
for a metaphor in its entirety to be understood appropriately, the author and
the reader depend on the meaning of the words used. Understanding the interplay between the focus
and the frame, which is vital for an appropriate metaphor, depends on a sufficient
understanding of the meaning of the words used as the focus and the frame. Black iterates, “The rules of our language
determine that some expressions must count as metaphors; and a speaker can no
more change this than he can legislate that “cow” shall mean the same as
“sheep.”” Black recognizes that there
are restrictions to what would constitute as an appropriate metaphor. A
metaphor is not a product of orthographic, phonetic, or grammatical usage. The author or speaker is constricted by the
normal usage of words.
When attempting to
understand the emphasis or weight that the author or speaker puts on the
metaphor Black recognizes that the author depends on the context. That is how the author or orator uses tone,
historical context, etc.
From here Black illustrates
a substitution view of what occurs
when using a metaphor that appeals to my understanding of the structure of a
metaphor. The substitution view supposes
that a Metaphor (M) is a substitute for the literal explanation (L) of the
point the author is trying to get across.
That is the (M) has the same meaning of (L). Black recognizes that this seems like an
unnecessary puzzle the author challenges the reader to solve included in a
narrative and attempts to understand what the value of this type of
substitution serves. He supposes that
perhaps there is no equivalent (L) so the author substitutes (M) in order to
get his point across. Additionally, Black
recognizes the potential pleasure added when reading a metaphor as opposed to
merely being exposed to a literal explanation.
Despite the potential enjoyment from problem solving (determining the
equivalent (L) from the (M)), and the potential delight at the agreeable
surprise, Black is not satisfied. He
feels as though this is a cheap explanation of a peculiar language quirk of
which there is little evidence for its support.
This feels as though it is the easy way out of explaining what is
occurring when one uses a metaphor.
Before
Black gives us his proposed structure of a metaphor he supposes that there is
little practical value in utilizing a metaphor.
He supposes, “Except in cases where a metaphor is a catachresis that
remedies some temporary imperfection of literal language, the purpose of
metaphor is to entertain and divert.” He
is of the opinion that since a metaphor always constitutes a deviation from the
“plain and strictly appropriate style,” there is little use for a metaphor in
the philosopher’s handbook if the philosopher is more interested in achieving a
higher purpose then entertaining their reader.
I find this to be selling metaphors short. There is a highly practical purpose of
artistically utilizing a metaphor. I
will explain after I conclude explaining Black’s structure of metaphor.
For
Black, the metaphor serves to extend the meaning of the focal word. That is, in his interaction view, the focus “obtains a new meaning, which is not
quite its meaning in literal uses, not quite the meaning which any literal
substitute would have.” He utilizes an
example of a man being a wolf. He
supposes that if there is mutual understanding of the characteristics of a wolf
and of a man then it should be understood that the focal word (wolf) serves to
provide a system of associated commonplaces that provide some value when interacting
with the subject; man. I would like to
refine Black’s structure of the role of metaphor and from that the value of the
metaphor becomes apparent.
The beauty of a
high quality metaphor is that it has the potential to unlock some emotional connection
to the point of (L). If a metaphor is
used with expertise then it serves to help explain the subjective character of
the experience. For example, when
someone says “my heart is the size of the ocean,” assuming the reader has had
the experience of standing on the beach and looking out onto the horizon, or
even better the reader has had the experience of being at sea and seeing only
blue water up to the horizon for all 360 degrees around him, he appreciates the
feeling of “miniscule” relative to the size of the. If the reader has had that experience he
feels a certain way about the size of the person’s heart. The depth of the understanding is
exponentially higher because of the closeness to the subjective
experience. Had the reader never had either
of those experiences, or if the author chose to use arbitrary adjectives (i.e. vast,
gigantic, huge) the reader has a superficial, yet in some cases sufficient,
understanding of (L). Though the reader
is not currently having the experience of the ocean, the relevant goal is to
have an understanding of “size.” A good
metaphor serves to provide something close to a phenomenological experience that
provides a better understanding of the type of size attempting to be described as
opposed to a simple understanding of the words used to describe (L).
Metaphors serve another
vital role. The English language still has holes in it. There are nuances of circumstance that can be
artistically explained via metaphor. The beauty of metaphor and the talent of
good users of metaphor is that they can artistically (that is in an
entertaining way) explain a phenomenon or a normal occurrence in a way that
betters gets the point across to the reader then simply utilizing (L) type
words. The metaphor refers beyond itself.
From this I appeal to Black’s extension theory. Not only does it have the potential to
explain all of the things that you want to get across in one word; that is,
have explanatory value, but also provides an experience that has more depth to
it then only using adjectives.
A critic would
challenge my supposition by suggesting an example of a very complicated and
subjective point that a metaphor would look to explain. Take for example, the feeling of “love at
first sight.” This is highly subjective,
controversial, and complicated experience.
Take for
example the example of Harry and Sally.
Harry went
to a philosophy study group and looked around at the other members of the study
group. When Harry’s eyes had the
blessing of seeing Sally he felt as though the “cat got his tongue.”
Not only is it a
difficult experience to understand the feeling of love and the excitement and
nerves that could come with it, having the subjective experience of feeling
like a “cat got his tongue” is equally as vague. Suppose the reader is always nervous and
perpetually has difficult finding his words.
Despite completely understanding the meaning of the words in the analogy
that reader probably would associate that feeling with negative scenarios like
embarrassment, lack of control, etc.
Clearly that is not the point the author meant to convey. Such a potentially subjective experience like
a phenomelogical one, or a complicated experience i.e. “love at first sight”
will serve as an elusive guide to (L) because of all of the potential external
(to this circumstance) variables that could be brought into the context of the
metaphor.
The enjoyment of
the metaphor is once you achieve the level of understanding it is as if you are
in the head of the author, that is attain an understanding of the current platitudes
at use in the metaphor. For, as Black
recognizes in determining things that have a subjective judgment, like
likeness, are not comfortable in that it seems to fail to provide a definite
understanding. He explains, “Likeness
always admits of degrees, so that a truly “objective” question would need to
take some such form as “Is A more like B than like C in respect of P.” I would respond to the critic by suggesting
that a good and appropriate metaphor written or spoken by a skilled writer or
orator would have to take into account the readership. The writer/orator would have to produce a
metaphor that with enough availability to the intended meaning so that most
readers would have adequate understanding of what is meant to occur when
reading the metaphor. This structure
gives authors and orators criteria for which to be judged on for the quality
and craftsmanship of their work. I
believe this to be a more accurate iteration of what a metaphor is rather then
merely catachresis. Catachresis is
merely using a word in some new sense in order to remedy a gap in the
vocabulary. Metaphor does remedy a gap
in the vocabulary but this is not mutually exclusive to the requirement of a
metaphor to provide the best path to point of (L). The reader rides the magic carpet woven by
the author to get to (L).
No comments:
Post a Comment