How well do you notice metaphors?

I generally only really notice them if they're particularly good, but if I'm reading prose that I find particularly boring, when I read it again looking for the metaphors, I often find I was bored because they were cliche, boring, or absent.

Serena Casey said:

See, now, I totally missed the baseball symbol throughout your post until you mentioned it. I am woefully unobservant! I mean, I read the whole post and noticed the individual references, but didn't string them together.

If I don't notice them in a THREAD about symbols and metaphors, maybe there's no hope for me...

Click to expand...

No, no, no -- that was the point! Putting symbolism in a story affects its shape and gives it a different sort of flavor whether or not the reader notices it.

So don't worry about it. Put symbols in if you want to; the readers either will or won't see them, and it's added spice either way.

RemusShepherd said:

I had to curve some grammar around to make this post into a subtle baseball analogy. If I had written it straight I would have pitched it a different way. So you can see that symbolism can be a scaffold. Just like setting and pacing, symbolism can provide boundaries inside which you build your story structure.

Click to expand...

Bows to your awesomeness.
Totally made my morning.

To answer OP: I love metaphors. And thematic symbolism. Especially if they work well together.
ie: a major theme in a story is falsehood in appearances, and many of the metaphors are about mannequins, mirrors, carnivals. Etc.

I'm a total nerd about it.

This reminds me of my college lit classes where we'd be discussing symbolism and metaphors and I'd think, "Dude was SO not thinking about how a bunch of nineteen-years-old trying to prove their intellectualism would work the image of this coffee pot to DEATH." I always found it hard to believe that writers were consciously inserting these artificialities. And I still tend to think that whatever metaphors or symbols usually arise from our subconscious, as well (or maybe I'm just lacking deliberatism myself on this front).

Anyway, if I notice them when I'm not reading for them consciously - i.e. for literary criticism or trying to build my own skills - I tend to feel they pull me out of the story a little.

I think your questions have been clearly answered but three is one more thing I want to add.

For me there are two kinds of metaphors. The first kind would be the "invisible ones" as already mentioned, that function as color to the written black and white text. Their function is to use as few words as possible to enhance the reader's vision of the physical setting/action of that particular moment in the story. So this type of metaphor has to be invisible since it is the image that it elicits that is more important than the words used, and if the reader becomes aware of the words that then distracts from the image being created.

Then there is the second type of metaphor. I think the second type is exactly the opposite of the first, while the first type is "invisible" the second is blatantly obvious, because unlike the first, the second type expresses some philosophical statement. These types or metaphors are used predominantly in poetry, or philosophy. Essentially the first kind is a mechanical tool used to create a visual image, while the second is an intellectual tool used to make the reader think, or see things from a new perspective.

So you should not catch the first kind, but you should definitely catch the second kind.

It depends on the book and how subtle it is (though sometimes I'll catch something I didn't notice before on a reread). I'm more likely to pick up on metaphors in poetry.

Serena Casey said:

How about symbols, which Nancy explains are metaphors that run through the entire novel? Her example is from Henry James's "The Golden Bowl," which throughout the story represents institutions of society, such as marriage, which are decaying from within (in the story the bowl breaks at some point).

I haven't read that, but I'm not sure I would have picked up on it. She says you should make it clear so the reader "gets" it, such as in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Do you notice those very often? Do they also stick out if not done well?

Click to expand...

If I notice it, such symbolism puts me off a book faster than anything. The real problem, though, is that critics will find such symbolism all through a novel, even if it isn't there.

You'd probably hate my writing then. You see, I was born Finnish. My own language is Finnish. I can't control English like the native speaker does, just like you can't control Finnish like I can.

I notice them when they are:

1) awful
2) cliches
3) brilliant

But If I didn't have so many years as a writer, etc., I think I'd only notice the awful ones. Just good ones, I don't stop at, but once in awhile, something really amazing comes along and I think, "well, %^&*, that's brilliant I wish I could have said that." I think that's a writers' issue.

As is sort of loving the awful ones, the way you love the Bulwer-Lytton contest winners, which are often overlapping categories, as in this, the winner of the 2011 B-L

"Cheryl’s mind turned like the vanes of a wind-powered turbine, chopping her sparrow-like thoughts into bloody pieces that fell onto a growing pile of forgotten memories."

Click to expand...

It's funny, my brain is so broiled and baked with metaphors and similes that I overcooked my kids with them and now that's how they talk too. It's a mouthful of analogies that stuffed and full of shite with it. hahaha...

Like my cooking symbol? I actually never heard it called that way, just an analogy. But you learn something new everyday.

But seriously folks, does anyone find themselves not just writing this way, but talking this way too? Or am I just a freak? (don't answer that.)

I think you should include a range of metaphors from blunt to subtle. It gives your readers something to talk about after they've finished the book

RemusShepherd said:

Metaphors are like clouds. They get noticed when they're beautiful or when they're weird and deformed, but outside of that they're just part of the scenery.

Click to expand...

Love this!

Undercover said:

But seriously folks, does anyone find themselves not just writing this way, but talking this way too? Or am I just a freak? (don't answer that.)

Click to expand...

I don't intentionally use metaphors...they just happen. But, when revising, I do search for an over/under use of them.

I notice them if they don't work, or if I don't understand them. Baseball metaphors are almost entirely lost on me, because I don't have the basic knowledge needed to interpret them. But the ones I really hate are the forced ones.

Most metaphors are invisible because they're so embedded in the language we use, they don't stand out as metaphors anymore.

(This can be a problem if you're writing, say, a fantasy or historical and the underlying basis for a common metaphor doesn't exist in the culture you're writing about. My own most recent struggle with this: how do I describe somebody replaying a conversation in his head, when tape/recording technology doesn't exist in his world? Unpack the metaphor; shift the frame.)

I guess I notice metaphors. Wish I was better at writing them.

I notice metaphors sometimes. And I have no idea how many I miss, because I don't notice the ones I don't notice.

Of course, I once read a book with a line like, "The fire burned away his name on the crates, a metaphor for how his identity was being destroyed..." and burst out laughing. That's not how you do it.

Maryn said:

(I've met Kress a handful of times, none lately. She thinks my name is Susan. It's not. She's cute about being corrected, and a really nice person.)

Click to expand...

Nancy Kress was my instructor at Clarion West last year. She's super nice and a very good teacher. I adore her

As for not knowing your name, that might be related to her faceblindness. When we introduced ourselves to her, she asked us to re-introduce ourselves if we met her at a con or something, and to not be offended if we don't recognize her. So I wouldn't take it personally

A good metaphor or simile is like eating a chocolate truffle. I linger over the taste. Bad ones are like seeds in a grape. I spit them out and eat more carefully thereafter.

So either way, I notice them.

Metaphors are such a part of everyday speech that it's pretty rare to notice all of them all the time--how about:

Maryn said:

they're just part of the lush background which is the author's voice.

Click to expand...

dangerousbill said:

An apt metaphor slips past, leaving the impression you want. A badly-chosen, inappropriate, or mixed metaphor calls attention to itself, and risks breaking the precious 'suspension of disbelief'.

When reading as a writer, then, you have to hunt for them deliberately to find the best ones. Some are wonderfully disguised.

Click to expand...

Serena Casey said:

I'm not sure if I have the skill to make it noticeable without hitting the reader over the head with it.

Click to expand...

HWigton said:

I agree, the best are usually part of the landscape. When one is so odd as to make me stop reading and say "Hey, that was cool/obnoxious/imperfect/mind blowing" then the reader in me clicks off and I'm analyzing instead of enjoying. Which sucks when I am at the top of the roller coaster, hands in the air, anticipating a great big WHEEEE!!! of plot advancement. Total buzz kill.

Click to expand...

I do understand you're asking more specifically about more creative metaphors... just the linguist in me can't help but mention that we use them allllllllll the time.

I love metaphors and I think that they are the reason novels such as Heart of Darkness get so much acclaim. There are metaphors in Heart that make my toes curl.