Dear Mike,
Personally I think it's a waste of time, unless it gives you pleasure, to
seek out x examples of this or that type of extracted metaphor.
The thing that matters is: does the metaphor in question work in its
particular poem?
My take on it is that to compare something to teeth is one thing, but to
compare something to teeth in a jaw is another, because you have then raised
the question of what precisely the jaw is.
My original point was that if you mention teeth, the jaw is implied -unless
we routinely expect to come across a line of snow leopards' loose teeth.
The trick of using simile, and other metaphor, in a poem is to use it so the
required points of comparisons are stressed, and not the unwanted ones. This
isn't to say that other points of comparisons won't be possible, but that
the reader's mind focusses on the 'correct' ones in terms of the poem. If a
metaphor is over-extended to the point when inappropriate connections are at
the fore, everything tumbles down.
Kind regards,
              grasshopper



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:00 PM
Subject: [THE-WORKS] the appropriate metaphor


The topic for today is the appropriate metaphor....or really, how to
identify the inappropriate one. The subject came up last week in the
discussion over my sub Dent du midi. Helen mentioned that the image of teeth
in a jaw to describe peaks in a mountain rangedidn´t work for her since
peaks don´t join mountain ranges in the same way as teeth fix into a jaw and
also since one wouldn´t see blue sky behind teeth in a jaw. This led me to
start wondering how far we need to condsider characteristics of images
beyond the specific characteristic that we are drawing on for our image. I
should also add that Helen´s second comment would apply equally to the teeth
for peaks, regardless of the jaw, since teeth do not have blue sky behind
them On this reckoning, teeth as an image for mountain peaks would not be
appropriate.
My lucubrations over the weekend have led me to the point where I would
question such a rigorous application of tests of suitability. That is not to
say that secondary implications of an image are irrelevant. The example of
Corporal Trim´s comment (The King deserves his crown as a thief deserves
hanging) is a clear case. But if we avoid such obvious blunders I think we
do enough. The definition of `obvious blunder´ remains open, but I think I
would argue for a more lenient approach than Helen proposed.
I looked into several books over the weekend and found examples of images
that could be argued with in every one. Here is a small selection:
1. The old South Boston Aquarium stands/ in a Sahara of snow
Robert Lowell in For the Union Dead
This really does test the definition of `obvious blunder´I think.

2. Hills covered with pine trees described as `an irregular, nervous
saw-teeth edge´
Elizabeth Bishop in Cape Breton.  Saw teeth, of course are regular, but I
don´t feel that that destroys the image for me

3. Fireflies described as moving up, then down `exactly like the bubbles in
champagne´
Bishop again in A Cold Spring. Champagne bubbles, of course, don´t go down.

There are plenty of other examples, but time is running....I actually have
to do some work, dammit. So, does anyone have any comments, anything to add,
your own examples?
Best wishes,   Mike