ixochiyo_yohuallan wrote:
Krex, GhostOfTheChameleon -
Much the same with me, too. I also find myself making comparisons and connections between things all the time, - usually between very concrete objects and something more abstract like concepts or my inner states, - and I seem to communicate my emotions most effectively through metaphor of one sort or another. Otherwise, when I try to describe what I feel directly, I have difficulty finding the right words, and probably come across as that stereotypical person with autistic tendencies who is either not aware enough of her own feelings or can't speak about them, or both. It's tiring too, experiencing something so clearly but not managing to convey it in an intelligible manner when I try.
Words like "happy" or "sad" or "isolated" are flat when they stand alone. They appear to be void of any particular feeling. It's as if they were so obscure one could fit many different shades into them, while in themselves, they mean nothing. There are many different types of "sad", for instance - the "iced over" sad, the "turned into stone" sad, the "walking through water" sad and so on (this is simplification but I hope you get the idea), and it is only these images that have real meaning to me. But "sad" in itself is little more than a string of sounds.
When reading, I also pick up feelings best of all when they're expressed through visual metaphor. Because of this, I really dislike the kind of writing where there are many words that mean feelings, but none of the more elaborate comparisons, especially the way it's done in many Romantic novels or horror stories (with "horrified" and "terror" and "overjoyed" and the like being all over the place). It reads like an empty combinations of words and gets really boring after a while.
krex wrote:
GhostOfTheChameleon wrote:
Metaphor is probably my most effective tool for communication. I find it much easier to draw parallels between two situations, feelings, etc., than to describe my thoughts literally. In fact, I don't think I'd have any problems communicating if it were possible to speak only through comparison and be understood.
`dp[/quot
I never even realized this until you said it but this is exactly what I do.It sometimes takes me several tries until the person "gets" what I am saying but it seems easier to be understood when I relate what I am talking about to something
concrete....like explaining human behavior by comparing it to some thing similar in nature...or using math or logic to try and explain "process" of abstract concepts in psychology,sociolgy,politics.
ixochiyo_yohuallan,
Your observation about books is actually the fault of the writer and you would make a good editor. The job of a writer is to show, not tell. What is happening when they use those words like happy, sad and isolated is that they are telling the story and assuming the reader understands that concept. In writing classes, that would be ripped to shreds. Instead they are supposed to show that happening with the character.
"She read the letter from Michael saying he loved her, would always love her, but it would never work out. The paper began to tremble with her hands and she gripped it tight so it would stop. A tear slowly made it's way down her cheek where it stuck on her upper lip and hung there."
That is showing. Whatever you assume about her feelings, must be gleaned from what is happening with her physical body. You don't "tell" your reader what to think.
So, just look at it this way, you would be an excellent editor!
27 Feb 2007, 9:20 am
I was thinking that I should try editing or literary translation if I receive my diploma and still have to have a job connected with language. I don't know how well it would work out, but it sounds a lot more appealing than technical translation. I'm sure it would be more interesting, and I enjoy the creative work one needs to do in order to rephrase a literary text, or to translate it into another language. Sometimes it's almost like re-creating the whole in piece in your own way.
