![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#11 | ||
|
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
I suppose, being a discussion of "applicability", applying the problem to another situation can only confuse it, but the decisiveness with which people crack down on the metaphor and declare "Ah, but it is not the same!" is not only irksome, but is related to the issue at hand. After all, if the reason that metaphor is "not the same"- and therefore non-applicable to the discussion- then surely all the linguistic evidence that is being debated should be taken in a similar manner, a manner which is purely literal. A metaphor or simile, after all, does its work by giving its message with the understanding that the person hearing/reading it understands the intended message. Does not a book work the same way? Yet if Tolkien says that his book is not an Allegory, that it was not written as a Metaphor or a Simile, but that it is intended to be taken at face, or literal, value. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this yet, and it may well just stop here, but I found it most amusing that Bęthberry, who is weighing in on the Readers' (and thus the "Metaphorists") side is attacking the use of the my Simile. After all, if one cannot use another situation to explain or describe another, then surely there is no point in debating canonicity, since the text can only describe one situation- the one it literally describes. Maybe that was my point... I don't know. I'm so confused... Quote:
As a relative newbie who has not read the parts of the discussion that occured prior to my arrival, I have been hesitant to enter into what, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be an "Verbose Old Guard" private debate... Fortunately (or unfortunately?), I got over that...
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|