Metaphors Part 2

How or why might a metaphor be valued over a simile? What makes them so different? I understand that a simile is a comparison using "like" or "as", approximating something to something else, and that a metaphor is more of an equation to something else, but what, other than that, would set them apart? Why would we study an entire chapter on metaphors, but not on similes? They are both types of literary comparisons. What can a metaphor do that a simile cannot? I believe that metaphors can help the reader to see something old as new, and to see things in a new light. But I don't see why similes couldn't do the exact same thing. They, too, may be able to bring old information into a new light, and change your perspective on things. They too are extraordinary tools used to look at the world through a different lens than the one you’ve been using. So why are metaphors viewed as more important than similes? It seems to me that, due to their very similar nature, they would be equally important in literature. 

Metaphors Part 1

There are many benefits and uses of metaphors, that much is obvious, but are there any true consequences or downfalls of using metaphors? I think that a lot of the 'problems' people identify with metaphors aren't really problems at all. For instance, someone might suggest that not all metaphors translate very well. What we mean in English by saying “opening a can of worms” may not mean the same thing in Chinese, for example, but that little misunderstanding can be explained easily enough so that I don’t think that’s an actual problem. The ambiguity of metaphors, someone might say, could also be a problem. Take “Richard is a lion”, for example. I don’t think any literary work would simply say that sentence as it. The context of the literary work would explain that Richard is brave, like a lion, but is not a lion himself. Context usually helps to clear up ambiguity in literature, so I don’t think that’s a problem either. Literal vs. figurative meaning in literature may be a problem for some at first, but a conversation over the metaphor in question would solve that problem immediately. And what about metaphors having a specific hidden meaning? Well, that just means that you have to think about the metaphor a little harder and a little longer. As far as I am concerned, there really are no consequences to metaphors, only benefits. They help the reader to see something old as new, to see things in a new light. Something that you may have always known was true in the back of your mind may suddenly make itself more clear with the help of metaphors. They are extraordinary tools used to look at the world through a different lens than the one you’ve been using. They may even be essential to literature. 

Half-beliefs

“To half believe something is to be not quite sure that it is true, but also not sure that it is not true.” (178) What are some examples of this? How can one truly believe and not believe in something? Would that go against the Law of Non-Contradiction? No, maybe not that. I usually think of that Law as either something is or is not, and cannot be and not be at the same time. But to believe and not to believe still seems very contradictory. I've been having a very difficult time trying to come up with some kind of example that would work for such a contradictory claim. One thing that I thought of was the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Corny example, I know. I read the book and watched a movie about it. I know that it is purely fiction, and it would be completely nonsensical to believe in it. I know that it is not real. And yet, when I learned that Sleepy Hollow was based on a real town in New York, I thought to myself that I would never in a million years go there. Which is really ridiculous. I have no reason to avoid that town, but if I know that if I was ever near it, I would avoid it like the plague. So, in that sense, I suppose I can somewhat understand what half-beliefs are. However, to maintain any half-beliefs at all seems to be complete nonsense. It doesn't seem to me that we can hold any rational half-beliefs. If we can or if we do, I can't think of any. Can anyone else think of an example? 

Quasi-emotions?

What are ‘quasi-emotions’? Are they lesser forms of ‘natural’ emotions, or different from emotions all together? What would such a thing look like? How do they manifest themselves? How does one experience them? The entire idea of 'quasi-emotions' sounds quite confusing and unnecessary to me. I think emotions are what emotions are, and that you can't have a different 'type' of emotion. If that is what 'quasi-emotions' are, different types of regular emotions, then I simply cannot believe that they exist. A person is either feeling something or they are not. There is no in-between there. However, I will concede that emotions can be measured as if on a scale. There can be and if fact there are various degrees of emotion that can be felt differently by various individuals. For instance, if you take a look at the general emotion of 'anger', you will clearly find varying degrees of it. Being annoyed, irritated, frustrated, mad, angry, irate, furious, etc. So, if the term 'quasi-emotions' means simply a lesser degree of an emotion, such as being annoyed rather then furious, then that seems to make perfect sense. And yet, if you look up the word 'quasi', you are very likely to find a definition like 'partly', 'almost' or 'seemingly'. But can you 'almost' have an emotion? Or 'seemingly' have one? How can you 'partly' feel sad, or angry, or happy, or scared? That doesn't make sense at all. If the author does in fact mean a less intense form of an emotion by the term 'quasi-emotion', then why not say simply that? Because certainly the term 'quasi' by itself means no such thing. 

Fiction/Emotion/Something Else

Some people believe that the reason why we can enjoy fiction is because of our disbelief in it, that we could not otherwise enjoy fictional works like tragedies. But is our disbelief in fiction the reason why we can enjoy it, or does it instead keep us from enjoying it? I think that disbelief in fiction could only inhibit our enjoyment. In order to truly enjoy any work of fiction, one must be able to fully immerse themselves in it, they need to lose themselves in it. If, throughout the fiction, a person is able to completely distance themselves from the work, and can only look at the work critically, clearly that person is missing the entire point of fiction. Fiction is suppose to make us feel, it's suppose to penetrate us straight to our very souls. It is suppose to connect with us on every level. The proper time to be critical of a fictional work is after it is done. No one is suppose to be able to think critically while first observing a fictional work because the work is suppose to whisk you away to another time and place, it should capture your mind and heart. If it does not do this for a particular audience, then either something is wrong with the audience or the fictional work. After you've seen a work for a few times, then of course you should be able to look at it through more critical eyes. Fiction is meant to awaken and arouse the deepest, most profound emotions in us, and so disbelief or removal from fiction is somewhat counterintuitive. 

Is Fiction Definable?

Is it possible for fiction to have a definition that is not only timeless, universal, and all encompassing, but also be specific and exact? Or could a specific and exact definition only be possible in the context of a work’s times? For me, a definition must be true forever and everywhere, but this tends to make definitions quite difficult. Things are always changing, things are always in motion, and it may be difficult to create a consistent definition. So does this mean that a more flexible definition is required, or a more strict one? I think a flexible definition could be timeless and universal, but only by being extremely vague. On the other hand, you could have a definition that is specific and exact, but you would probably only be able to use that definition at a certain time in a certain place. What kind of definition would be better? Or is neither way better than the other? How should one even start going about trying to define a term like "fiction", which can cover such a wide range of items? 

Morris Weitz and Definitions

Can Morris Weitz’s idea about defining art truly be applied to music, literature, and other popular art-related domains? Does this make for a sufficient definition? For anyone who doesn't know, Weitz came up with the idea of having a kind of umbrella term for "art", making the actual definition of "art" impossible, but being able to define the sub-categories of "art" which all bear a kind of "family resemblance" to each other. I personally liked this idea in terms of art, but I was wondering how many other things this kind of concept could be applied to. I think it would be very helpful in relation to trying to find a good definition for "fiction". It would be much easier to define fiction in the specific, Sci-Fi movies for example, rather than in the general. After we identified and defined the various sub-categories for "fiction", we could then go on to determine whether or not "fiction" itself is definable. If it is, it can be defined in relation to the sub-categories. And, if it is not definable, at least we can define specific types of fictional works. 

Defining Literature Part 3

What is the difference between epics, novels, novellas, stories, narratives, texts, discourses, poetry, lyrics, speeches, manuscripts, reports, pamphlets, brochures, textbooks, catalogs, letters, etc? More importantly, what is the common thread that holds them all together? I always assumed that they all fell under the general category of “literature”, because they all appear to be written literary works, and what else does something need to be to be properly called “literature”? I truly do believe that a necessary condition for literature is to be written, but I now question whether or not being written is sufficient for the definition. After all, I don’t want to be radically inclusive. So what kind of criteria can we make for "literature"? What are the distinguishing factors between other various written works? What are the sufficient conditions for putting a work in the category of  "literature"? The authors' intention is one thing that should be considered. If an author did not mean for a work to be "literature", then perhaps it should not be called so. On the other hand, if an author did mean for a work to be "literature", does that automatically make it so? I think not. At least, it is not sufficient enough. But maybe intention could be a necessary condition for "literature". When one looks at fictional works vs. non-fictional ones, it can be very difficult to find the common thread that allow them to both be called "literature". I would think that this would make the criteria for "literature" incredibly small. I think we can at least say "being written" is one of the criteria, and "authors' intention" might be another, but after that I must say that I am at a loss. The factors vary so much from one written piece to another that I simply cannot come up with an adequate definition of "literature". But, I would be very anxious to know if anyone else can... 

Defining Literature Part 2

What type of “definition” are we talking about here? Do we mean a semantic, or lexical definition, for example? Must this definition be completely “closed”, or can it remain somewhat “open”? When I think of  the term "definition", I imagine a closed lexical definition, something that is both universal and everlasting (that is, that it is true everywhere across time). However, I recognize that if we try to define the term "literature" with that kind of definition, we will inevitably fail. As with most of the arts, it appears that a more open definition is required. But then we fall into another problem, the problem of radical inclusivity. How open can we make the definition while still retaining some proper criteria? And there is another problem with defining literature; can literature be measured on a scale, or must it be binary? That is, must a work either be or not be literature? Although a binary definition does seem to be more closed, surely not every written work can be a work of literature. And if we were using a binary type definition, should we then only use a scale to measure how well a work succeeds at being literature? We need to first decide on how we are going to define "literature" before actually trying to decide upon the criteria it will need to satisfy. 

Defining Literature Part 1

Can we define “literature” without first defining “art”? If “literature” falls under the umbrella term “art”, can “literature” also have its own sub-umbrella of various literary works? If “art” actually does fall under the umbrella term “aesthetic”, as some might suggest, must all of these works underneath "art"  be considered “aesthetic” as well, or only some of them? Does "art" in and of itself have to be "aesthetic"? Is that actually a necessary condition, or merely a desirable one which makes a work more successful? By "aesthetic" I here mean to enrich or enhance an experience, but that definition is clearly not agreed upon. If it was, it should not be that difficult to include non-fiction works as well as the fiction ones. And yet, fictional works seem to be much more widely agreed upon as "literature" while many non-fiction ones are more controversial. Subjective opinions and ideas tend to make a big mess out of aesthetics, because what might enhance or enrich one persons' experience may have the opposite effect on another. Much of the time, many works of fiction are agreed upon by different people. However, while one person might thoroughly enjoy the autobiography of Mark Twain and find it very aesthetically pleasing, another might find it simply boring and a waste of time. This makes using the term "aesthetic" very difficult while trying to create a concrete definition for "literature". What is the true correlation between the terms "literature", "art", and "aesthetic"?