The Vent Exhaust

Blog 2: Round II with Metaphors

While reading Micheal Erard’s See through words, I noticed I was being way more critical of what he was saying. My first read though was just trying to figure out what he was saying. I did so quite unsuccessfully. This second time I think I understood a few more things. These new understandings, I think, are fairly unimportant. For example, I understand the Enron accounting scandal now as well as a basic idea of epigenetics. I would say these have no real baring on the understanding of the text. My lack of understanding of the text probably comes from my apathy towards what Erard is saying as well as I simply cannot easily gauge information from his writing style.

As for my criticisms, I found he spoke quite authoritatively along with a few miscellaneous complaints. In my opinion, he writes as if he know everything. I had this thought on the first page when he writes, “They’re [metaphors] meant to make someone realise that they’ve only been looking at one side of a thing.” I think metaphors can be used in many ways and do not have one true meaning. He also claims that once metaphors are interpreted differently than the author intended, it’s a bad thing. However, this happens with any and all other types of literary works, or any form of art really. Is that a bad thing too? I wouldn’t say so. People are going to interpret things differently, and those differences are what generates discussion.  Open discourse is the way to find what is “right and wrong” if there truly is a right and wrong. The point is, I personally don’t like how Erard speaks like his opinions on metaphors are fact.

1 Comment

  1. elishaemerson

    I appreciate your thoughtful reflections. I’m curious how Geary sits with you. As you draft your first paper, I encourage you to revisit his transcript, as you may find his text more palatable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php