Personally, I like a good simile or metaphor, but I've sometimes read on here that they should be avoided.

Can someone tell me why? I realise that they can be cliched but is there not still room in good fiction for these figures of speech if they are well chosen and apposite?

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head - most are so familiar they've become cliches. Conversly, it's easy to over do it if they take the place of simple description.
Probably best to save them for then they're most appropriate.



- NaomiM

The other reason to go carefully is that it's very easy to end up with mixed metaphors. My best mixed metaphor ever was a journalist, describing a small political group which had recently come to prominence: 'There is an army of strange bedfellows jumping on the bandwagon.'

But saying 'avoid them' is bunk. It's not possible to write anything worth reading without figurative language.

Emma

Thank you, both.

Emma, I'm sure you commented elsewhere that avoiding similes and metaphors showed good taste, or words to that effect. I suppose you meant bad ones?

Emma, I'm sure you commented elsewhere that avoiding similes and metaphors showed good taste, or words to that effect. I suppose you meant bad ones?

Golly, did I? I must have been on something.

Having said that, of course, Naomi's absolutely right that much of what we'd label over-writing is over-stuffed with elaborate figurative language, to the point where all the images just work against each other. Even if an image itself is fresh and strong (and as Naomi also says, often they're not) they can work against each other. Nicola Morgan wisely likens it to wearing two diamond necklaces: neither can do its job properly.

Emma

Reminds me of an old joke.

This school kid was asked by his teacher to use a metaphor in a sentence. So the kids goes, "I met her for a drink"!

Ben

Gosh, I should use them and make them bloody good ones if I were you. What is poetry but incessant metaphor? As Emma says, I can't imagine a book worth reading without them in. Or... I can, actually. But it would be an awfully worthy, Strunk-and-White type of book.

But it would be an awfully worthy, Strunk-and-White type of book.

Now, now! All that S&W say on the matter is this:

"The simile is a common device and a useful one, but similes coming in rapid fire, one right on top of another, are more distracting than illuminating. Readers need time to catch their breath; they can't be expected to compare everything with something else, and no relief in sight.

When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don't start calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass." (pp. 115, new edition)

That's the first Strunk & White thing I've ever heard quoted which I agree with.

Emma

It's crazy, in my opinion, to talk about trying to avoid simile and (especially) metaphor, since our whole language is thick with it, much of it embedded so deep that we no longer even notice that it's there.

For example, language isn't literally 'thick' - that was a metaphor. So is the idea of metaphors being 'embedded'.

The way I see it, there are three levels of imagery. First, there's the kind that has become so much part of the language that we no longer even notice it's there. This kind is unavoidable - and wholly unproblematic. We couldn't cut it out (metaphor!) or skirt round it (metaphor!) if we tried.

At the other end of the spectrum is brand new, fresh imagery that the author comes up with to surprise the reader, and make her look at things in new ways. The truly original stuff: the garden shadows that are like stalking cats, the football terrace yobbery of the rooks (or whatever - but you get the idea). This is also potentially good - as long as it is used in moderation, and in places where the author really WANTS the reader to pause for a moment and consider this new angle on the word that is being presented.

The third category is the one in the middle: the images, be they simile or metaphor which are no longer fresh but have become well-used and boring, and no longer make us imagine in new ways - yet they still stick out as BEING images, because they have not yet made it to the embedded category. Things that are flat as pancakes, bright as buttons, gossamer thin, etc. These are the ones, I would say, to avoid. (Except in dialogue, of course: real people's speech is littered with well-used imagery.)

Rosy x

Emma, have you seen the new (illustrated!) edition? There seems to be a lot of anti-S&W sentiment on this site, which I've never really understood. Section one, on elementary usage, is just a basic grammar guide - the kind of thing I wish more of my students would refer to - and the sections that follow (on commonly misused words and 'reminders' on style - eg. place yourself in the background; do not overwrite/overstate; do not explain too much, etc.) comprise the sort of common-sense advice that we tend to see from experienced writers on WW and elsewhere. Am I missing something?

<Added>

Getting back to similes and metaphors - a while ago my supervisor suggested, as a general rule of thumb, to avoid comparing small things to large (large to small is almost always more effective). At first this struck me as a bizarre and overly prescriptive idea, but the more I read, the more I noticed that it held true: the best similes always seem to reduce big ideas, or sentiments, or characteristics to smaller things.

One to think about, anyway!

My main beef with S&W is a very confusing section on passive voice, where the examples they give are almost all NOT passive voice at all. But that was a very old edition - maybe they've changed that bit by now.

Interesting idea, about only comparing large things to small and not vice versa. I'm going to look out for that now!

Rosy x




<Added>

They are also one of the original source of bossy anti-adverbism. And I LOVE adverbs!

I am personally quite weird in that I am a real stickler for the rules when it comes to grammar and spelling and punctuation and correct English usage - but very anarchistic and anti-rule when it comes to prescriptions about how we should actually write.

The only comment on adverbs in my edition is on page 109-110, which says:

'Do not construct awkward adverbs:

'Adverbs are easy to build. Take an adjective or a participle, add -ly, and belhold! you have an adverb. But you'd probably be better off without it. Do not write tangledly. The word itself is a tangle. Do not even write tiredly. Nobody says tangledly and not many people say tiredly. Words that are not used orally are seldom ones to put on paper. (There follow several examples...eg. 'thusly'

'Do not dress words up by adding -ly to them, as though putting a hat on a horse.'

I know what you mean about the bossy tone, but it's not really very controversial, is it? And as they say in the intro, once you understand the rules and are a good enough writer, there's nothing to stop you from breaking them...

(should have said in previous post, in his opinion, large to small is almost always more effective)

<Added>

rogue smiley!

Poor S&W! I have unfairly maligned them