Me:
And, so, I have a question. Or maybe a statement -- I STILL don't really "get" metaphor. I mean, I use the word a lot and so do a lot of my friends, but I'm not really sure what any of us mean by it, even after Sherry Kramer talked about it. And it makes me feel really stupid that I don't really get it, or know how to employ it effectively on behalf of my plays.Do YOU feel like you can explain what we mean by it, when we're talking about the use of it onstage? I'm actually doing a crash-course in August Wilson now because he seems to be a master of it...sigh...
Steve:
Huh. That's a complicated question. On a basic, like, English major level, metaphor is any language or imagery that draws a comparison between two things. Among other such devices, a simile is not distinct from metaphor per se; it's a particular subspecies of metaphor. Allegory, similarly, is also metaphorical--just that in allegory, the correspondences between things line up pretty rigidly. Metaphor's a pretty broad category, frankly.
So there's metaphor through language, which is easy to spot. "All the world's a stage" is a pretty basic (and obviously successful) example.
Then there's metaphor through action or imagery.
I always find the metaphor / allegory distinction interesting and instructive. (A great example of allegory: Spenser's THE FAERIE QUEENE). Because allegory is seen as fairly rigid, and allegory is also considered a subset of metaphor, this implies that metaphor as a larger definition can function in a slippery fashion, where meanings can be fairly fluid. A theatrical metaphor might be localized and specific, but it can also be diffuse, suggesting connections vaguely.
I would say a metaphor is anything in a play that can stand in for something other than its value as a literal object. That's the simplest I can make it for myself.
I would locate my frustration with poorly defined metaphors around those which ANNOUNCE themselves as metaphors. These are images, or turns of phrase, or actions, which an audience can tell are supposed to be metaphors because they have almost no value as literal actions, and therefore rely almost entirely on the power of the metaphor itself. Which is a dicey proposition.
A great example of a metaphor that locates itself firmly in both metaphor and literal reality: In DEATH OF A SALESMAN, when Willy can't work the tape recording machine, he's wrestling with modernity and being a professional dinosaur. But guess what? It's also ACTUALLY A TAPE RECORDING MACHINE.
And see what I did? I called him a dinosaur. Unintended use of metaphor.
As far as using metaphor effectively in my own writing, I think that's tough. My own litmus test for imagery, though, is the reality test. So maybe the doll on stage represents all sorts of things. But when I write the plot to THE BODY, I have to make the doll a literal doll in my storytelling and let the metaphor take care of itself.
But if someone's hand starts glowing for no reason just because... I don't know, it looks cool? That's an irresponsible use of metaphoric imagery.
So there's metaphor through language, which is easy to spot. "All the world's a stage" is a pretty basic (and obviously successful) example.
Then there's metaphor through action or imagery.
| From the opening stage direction of Eugene O'Neill's DESIRE UNDER THE ELMS: "Two enormous elms are on each side of the house. They bend their trailing branches down over the roof. They appear to protect and at the same time subdue. There is a sinister maternity in their aspect, a crushing, jealous absorption. They have developed from their intimate contact with the life of man in the house an appalling humaneness. They brood oppressively over the house. They are like exhausted women resting their sagging breasts and hands and hair on its roof, and when it rains their tears trickle down monotonously and rot on the shingles." I believe that at least some of that will read to an audience. The oppressive part, certainly. |
I always find the metaphor / allegory distinction interesting and instructive. (A great example of allegory: Spenser's THE FAERIE QUEENE). Because allegory is seen as fairly rigid, and allegory is also considered a subset of metaphor, this implies that metaphor as a larger definition can function in a slippery fashion, where meanings can be fairly fluid. A theatrical metaphor might be localized and specific, but it can also be diffuse, suggesting connections vaguely.
I would say a metaphor is anything in a play that can stand in for something other than its value as a literal object. That's the simplest I can make it for myself.
I would locate my frustration with poorly defined metaphors around those which ANNOUNCE themselves as metaphors. These are images, or turns of phrase, or actions, which an audience can tell are supposed to be metaphors because they have almost no value as literal actions, and therefore rely almost entirely on the power of the metaphor itself. Which is a dicey proposition.
A great example of a metaphor that locates itself firmly in both metaphor and literal reality: In DEATH OF A SALESMAN, when Willy can't work the tape recording machine, he's wrestling with modernity and being a professional dinosaur. But guess what? It's also ACTUALLY A TAPE RECORDING MACHINE.
And see what I did? I called him a dinosaur. Unintended use of metaphor.
As far as using metaphor effectively in my own writing, I think that's tough. My own litmus test for imagery, though, is the reality test. So maybe the doll on stage represents all sorts of things. But when I write the plot to THE BODY, I have to make the doll a literal doll in my storytelling and let the metaphor take care of itself.
But if someone's hand starts glowing for no reason just because... I don't know, it looks cool? That's an irresponsible use of metaphoric imagery.
No comments:
Post a Comment