Post by amychen on Jun 26, 2013 2:19:26 GMT
I was going to wait until I finished the book to comment on these metaphors but I don't think I can take it any longer.
John Gardner. What are you doing. These metaphors are even worse than Steinbeck's hair-sausage metaphor in Of Mice and Men.
Some of them make sense, like most of the nature based metaphors. But then, we have these:
The "What is that?" (Esoteric):
"Things about their fathers and their fathers' fathers, things about justice and honor and lawful revenge---their throats swollen, their eyes rolling like a newborn colt's, sweat running down their shoulders" (Gardner 30).
The "Much too specific":
"I backed away, crablike, further into darkness---like a crab retreating in pain when you strike two stones at the mouth of his underwater den" (Gardner 41).
"My mother was asleep; she was as deadlooking as a red-gray old sea-elephant stretched on the shore of a summer day" (Gardner 47).
And "Both" (shout-out to Calc AB/BC)---:Note: this is not quite a metaphor but rather a poor attempt at imagery. Or, perhaps the goal was to be confusing. I stopped reading at this point out of the urge to rant about what I've read up to this point.
I'm pretty sure Gardner is just throwing out random math words here and his editor didn't catch it because math is hard. I am, however, thoroughly confused as to what exactly is being described so I might follow-up if I realize I've just said something incredibly stupid or that Gardner is being a literary genius. Feel free to debate me, agree with me, nerd-out with me, etc.
John Gardner. What are you doing. These metaphors are even worse than Steinbeck's hair-sausage metaphor in Of Mice and Men.
Some of them make sense, like most of the nature based metaphors. But then, we have these:
The "What is that?" (Esoteric):
"Things about their fathers and their fathers' fathers, things about justice and honor and lawful revenge---their throats swollen, their eyes rolling like a newborn colt's, sweat running down their shoulders" (Gardner 30).
- I sort of understand what he means, but only to the extent that I know what eye rolling is. Unless you live on a farm or deal with horses rather often, it's highly unlikely that you understand what he means.
- Also, how does Grendel know what this looks like? I get that he's surrounded by nature and animals most of the time but the occasion that he would be there right after a colt was born and the colt wouldn't be reacting naturally to a terrifying "monster" doesn't seem likely. Or maybe eye-rolling is how a colt would react to that situation. Hm.
The "Much too specific":
"I backed away, crablike, further into darkness---like a crab retreating in pain when you strike two stones at the mouth of his underwater den" (Gardner 41).
- Yeah, just let me go drive down to the beach, find a crab den, and throw in a couple rocks. Alright.
"My mother was asleep; she was as deadlooking as a red-gray old sea-elephant stretched on the shore of a summer day" (Gardner 47).
- I read this book a while back called How Not to Write a Novel. One of the things not to do: use unnecessary and distracting metaphors. Instead of picturing his mother sleeping, I'm picturing washed-up sea life. Thanks, Mr. Gardner.
And "Both" (shout-out to Calc AB/BC)---:
Mathematically, perhaps a torus, loosely cylindrical, with swellings and constrictions at intervals, knobbed---that is to say, a surface generated, more or less, by the revolutions of a conic about an axis lying in its plane, and the solid thus enclosed. It is difficult, of course, to be precise. For one thing, the problem of determining how much is queen and how much queenly radiation
...Time-Space cross-section: Wealtheow.
Cut A:
(Gardner 81).
...Time-Space cross-section: Wealtheow.
Cut A:
(Gardner 81).
- If you didn't know---and I didn't---these are tori:
- If anybody else in calculus can help me out in understanding this, it would be much appreciated. Let me be a nerd for a second and explain my confusion:
- I kind of wish Gardner gave me a graph to describe what this is, and which cross section is "Cut A" and where exactly these cross sections are, but that may or may not be important.
- Describing the figure as a "conic" is too vague. I guess a circle is a conic and forms a torus when rotated around an axis, but a hyperbola is also a conic and, rotated around an axis, that would be a mess.
- Everything else, however, is too specific. Or just unnecessary. He tries to use math to describe something but then says "loosely" and "more or less." Honestly, looking at what a torus actually looks like I would rather he had gone with "bagel" or "bloated bagel" (as seen in the lower two tori) or, keeping with the strange ocean metaphor theme, "a sea urchin, partially imploded from being poked with a long stick by a child afraid of getting stung." or, simply, "pumpkin without a stem". If you want to argue that Grendel has no way of knowing what a bagel is or the sea urchin scenario, explain to me how he knows calculus.
I'm pretty sure Gardner is just throwing out random math words here and his editor didn't catch it because math is hard. I am, however, thoroughly confused as to what exactly is being described so I might follow-up if I realize I've just said something incredibly stupid or that Gardner is being a literary genius. Feel free to debate me, agree with me, nerd-out with me, etc.
