After re-reading Michael Erard’s essay, I was able to be aware of more of the things going on in his writing. It was clear that Erard had a purpose while writing his essay. It is insightful entirely throughout every single paragraph, but it is more than just that. It is clear that he has an opinion and he is not afraid to share it. To me, it seems clear that Erard would like to share that metaphors are not necessarily about beauty anymore, which he seems to think is a common misconception based on the history of metaphors. He uses this introductory claim as a foundation for the rest of his essay. He talks very prominently about the usability of metaphors. His words carry weight naturally because of his reputation as a writer and metaphor designer. This only helps his case. He uses very many literary methods in order to persuade his audience, which is most likely just a broad body of people that are open to learning new philosophical concepts. He uses methods such as appealing to the audience with a more casual tone, using quotes that are hard to deny, and delivering a sense of acceptability of emotion and culture. All of these things tie together nicely to create an essay worth reading that can teach very much about metaphorical thinking. I was able to notice all of this because I wasn’t so focused on content during the second read. This made it easier to see what the writer was trying to do in this essay.
Although everything is very well written, I have always had troubles with understanding the concept of politics. I took this chance to glance over an article by Art Markman that explains metaphor in politics and really just simplifies the idea of how much the public is affected by the use of metaphor during political debates. This quick read to understand this concept that was briefly covered by Erard made it much easier to understand what the essay was getting at. Glossing a text outside of a passage can be a good way to further knowledge about something briefly covered. Writers can only cover so much about a topic in a paper so this is a great use of resources.
Ben,
Thank you for calling my attention to the Art Markman piece. I plan to read it tonight. It looks fascinating. You do a wonderful job articulating your continued insight into Erard’s text.
You write: “To me, it seems clear that Erard would like to share that metaphors are not necessarily about beauty anymore, which he seems to think is a common misconception based on the history of metaphors. He uses this introductory claim as a foundation for the rest of his essay.”
What do you think about this? Do you think beauty and usability are necessarily at odds when it comes to language/communication? Can one pursue both?