some things just do carry associations culturally, and you have to be aware
of them, like "Nearer to thee" being the Titanic film music (and indeed part
of the story). After certain treatments, some phrases can never be the same
again,- if they are used too often they actually ecome cliches - and those
associations will always cling to them when they are used.
They can be used in the opposite way to add cultural implications to a
piece, of course. 
bw
SallyE

on 25/11/03 12:16 pm, Mike Horwood at [log in to unmask] wrote:

>> Hello Grasshopper,
> Many thanks for your further thoughts here, and maybe this whole issue is
> slowly becoming clearer in my mind. I can certainly take your point that there
> is a difference between the poet drawing attention to unwanted aspects of a
> metaphor and the reader creating them for him/herself. If Elizabeth Bishop had
> compared her fireflies to bubbles of champagne IN A GLASS she might have
> committed the mistake that I did. It is the actual mentioning of unwanted
> aspects that may draw the reader´s attention towards the unwanted comparison.
> But if they make the unwanted comparison independently then they do so on
> their own resposnibility, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes,    Mike
> 
> 
> 
>> Lähettäjä: grasshopper <[log in to unmask]>
>> Päiväys: 2003/11/24 ma PM 03:59:49 GMT+02:00
>> Vastaanottaja: [log in to unmask]
>> Aihe: Re: the appropriate metaphor
>> 
>> 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
>>