The deeper I get into writing, and what it means to write well, the harder it is. Reading Martin Amis's The War Against Cliche was a particularly pernicious moment for me. So was Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By.
I think the question is this: does a rhetorical figure of speech help the reader or writer see the things being compared or figurized in a new way? If the answer is no, then perhaps we should look at those rhetorical things as literal, in order to remind ourselves of the power of rhetoric.
I favor metaphors and hyperbole like politicians favor hand-shaking and baby-kissing. But it to be done well.
Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946:
"By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. "
"Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."
It's funny how things like this can sit totally dormant in your mind for years and years, and at the first mention everything floods back. And just for a silly ST:TNG reference.
I think the question is this: does a rhetorical figure of speech help the reader or writer see the things being compared or figurized in a new way? If the answer is no, then perhaps we should look at those rhetorical things as literal, in order to remind ourselves of the power of rhetoric.
I favor metaphors and hyperbole like politicians favor hand-shaking and baby-kissing. But it to be done well.