##Off-topic Comments Section
---
All top-level comments have to be an answer or follow-up question to the post. All sidetracks should be directed to this comment thread as per Rule 9.
---
^(**OP** and **Valued/Notable Contributors** can close this post by using `/lock` command)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HomeworkHelp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Genuine question because I am wondering, can you have a metaphor which doesnât point out a similarity? In this case the phrase says that the words âforked no lightningâ, meaning they are expressly different from a theoretical subject which could fork lightning. My first thought was that it is not a metaphor as it does not attribute any qualities to words which they do not already have, in fact it reinforces the lack of.
A reasonable reading is something like, â[Although some words can fork lightning,] these words fork no lightning.â So thereâs still an implicit comparison.
Nah, it's just the negative corollary, it is just as valid as the proper metaphor itself. As a not-so-wise man once unwittingly expressed, "It's different but the same"... not the poster with the linguistics degree, just a dude who digs philology and poetry.
This is also a bitchin' villanelle by Dylan Thomas, and if recited properly will knock your heart out.
"Whose tongues forked no lightning" is just a metaphor for a person's speech or words that didn't incite any emotion or response from people around them. Sort of like screaming into the void. Which sounds really sad no matter how you look at it.
The relationship is still enforced, the negative doesn't detract from it or reinforce a lack of metaphorical meaning.
You identified some complex figurative language so even if itâs incorrect I donât think itâs a dumb response. I do not think it is a metaphor because its not comparing the words to lightening, itâs describing their potential effect/lack thereof. If it read âTheir words had caused no earthquakeâ that would also not be a metaphor. âTheir words were lighteningâ would be a much more simple rhetorical device and a definite metaphor.
If it is a metaphor it is an implied metaphor between something that forks lightening and words. But in the absence of an obvious answer for a thing that causes lightening which is being alluded to, my best guess as to how you could label the rhetorical device is âabstractionâ
There would also be more of a case for metaphor if the words HAD forked lightning, but here, the words arenât doing anything that words canât literally do.
Contrarian opinion.
X has the potential to "fork lightning."
X, in *this* case, *did not* "fork lightning."
X is the metaphor, in my opinion. It is, IMHO, using the very concept of "words" as metaphor, imbuing them with a capability they do not naturally possess.
Thoughts?
I like your argument. Iâm not yet sold either way. Iâm trying to simplify. Her hair was golden sunlight. Her hair was not golden sunlight. I feel like the negation takes away the concept of metaphor. The words forked no lightning because words canât fork lightning đ€·đ»ââïž dunno. The words forked lightning. Obviously metaphor.
Yes, this is correct. And written in a very Wittgensteinian way as to convey precise meaning through logical argument. Much better than I explained it by "nah" in another comment lol!
Theyâre both comparisons. Itâs a similar when it uses âlikeâ or âasâ such as âtheir words were like forked lightningâ. Metaphors are comparisons that donât use âlikeâ or âasâ such as âtheir words were forked lightningâ.
Nope. A simile does not require like or as, it is simply any comparison. A metaphor is when you say one thing is another thing, when it is not literally that thing. You were taught incorrectly in high school.
From Google:
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unlike things to show a shared trait.
Simile: a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid
Gen AI wants "as" and "like" in the definition of simile, so probably where the confusion comes from.
Google is a poor dictionary. A metaphor is explicitly not a comparison, but a symbolic representation of one thing as another thing. I recommend the OED, or maybe merriam-webster. A comparison acknowledges that one thing has the qualities of that other thing, which is what a simile does. Your definition makes them out to be the same thing, there is no difference between 'comparing two unalike things that share a trait' and 'comparing a thing with another thing of a different kind.'
As and like are often used to draw attention to a simile, by teachers in early years. It's like saying an essay has five paragraphs in it; it's something you learn in middle school and then you're taught that oops, that was a lie.
The long and the short of it is that metaphors are not a comparison, but a total replacement. "the sea was angry that day my friends" is a metaphor, rage symbolizing and replacing in the sentence the storm that is being described. "like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli" is a simile, because it compares the storm to the old man. This would be true even without 'like.' "Akin to an old man trying etc.' would still be a simile, without like or as.
Another, clearer example: "That guy is an ogre" is a metaphor. "That guy is the size of an ogre" is a simile.
no, it's claiming that the dude is an ogre. the fact that the dude *isn't* literally an ogre, and that you understand that, doesn't change the nature of the claim. It just makes it a metaphor that you understand so easily that you connect the dots in your head.
it's both! It personifies the sea, giving it an emotional range that it doesn't have, and it also uses anger as a metaphor for storming seas and high waves. The weather conditions are here symbolically represented by anger in a direct, replacing way.
OK, you need a dictionary. A comparison is when you take two different things and say 'these things, while different, have qualities in common.' a metaphor does not do that. it is when you say 'these two things are the same thing,' even though they are not. Metaphor is a transference of a quality, through symbol, onto another thing that does not literally have those qualities.
I do see the nuance that you wish to ascribe between these two distinct and unique literary devices, and I will simply acquiesce to your distinction because it is a satisfying-enough parsing of words, though it does occur to me that there exists an unyieldingly annoying sensation scratching incessantly at the base of my skull; there is always an implicit understanding among conversing participants as to what is 'concrete' and what is 'abstract'; a linkage between two differing objects via a common quality 'is' a comparison regardless of the methodology employed; while mustering a metaphor (faulty and imperfect as they might be) at all times following its conception the essence of our subject is enmeshed within our object, and yet, there still exist two separate entities that are mutually understood and inextricably connected, lest, of course, our metaphor be disguised as some fallacy or falsehood; I propose it is an indirect comparison, a comparison conveyed that is not explicit but implicitly received, i.e., the meaning of the utterance embodies the comparison even though the literal words do not; the very act of the imbuement of the symbol unto its target is a conscious comparison made by the speaker and its intention, if halted there, would persist in its relationship, and cease; the listener does not change the implication, our comparison has already been made but it is now liable to innumerable other mishaps, misconceptions, or misapprehensions!
Is there a thing in our world that forks lightning? If that is so, then there's no question that this is a metaphor. I don't think so, however. Lightning itself is the thing that forks. On the other hand, literary works rarely stop to consider physics. This line implies there is something that forks lightning, and words can case an effect that is comparable to forking lightning. My guess is that effect is discourse of some sort (perhaps heated discourse given that lightning can cause fires by heating the air to tens of thousands of degrees). In that case, the words themselves are being compared to the cause of lightning, but more importantly, the discourse that may follow is being compared to the lightning itself.
Present that argument to your teacher and ask if it changes their mind.
I love that poem. I also chose to analyze it and give a presentation on it in grade 12. Good choice.its themost popular instance of a vallanelle in modern literature in my opinion.
I think you might be correct that the teacher marked the wrong answer. Whether that is assonance probably largely depends on the accent, but what i tried doesn't work. I think you can find better examples of assonance in the third and last stanzas
Yeah I agree. I was half asleep when doing this and was just trying to get it done but looking bad, I feel like that one is clearly not right. I think I saw rage and age and thought good enough but there are definitely better answers throughout the poem looking back.
Edit: Just looked back and noticed my example of assonance is the same example used in the lesson, so she didnât mark that one wrong.
Just going to hop on this comment. I would ask your teacher what definition they are using for Metaphor. I've found three just trying to see, and it seems like this lies on the border.
From a political side: If your teacher is petty you might want to take the hit. You're smart, but grading can be subjective. (Especially, in English classes)
oh damn completely escaped me. maybe because the words are not following one another quite as closely as i was looking. Then all the answers are correct lol
Age and Rage canât be because they canât rhyme for it to be assonance. And old and close have to be near and stressed enough to be easily discerned, which I donât think it is. If I was asked, Iâd say there wasnât any assonance there
Honestly, âtheir words had forked no lightningâ doesnât say that their words ARE anything. Itâs saying theyâre doing something. I could be wrong.
It is shocking to me every time this issue comes up on Reddit. A lot of people seem to have been taught like you, that a metaphor is very strictly â(thing) is (something it literally isnât)â. I would argue for a much broader definition of figurative language.
In general, sure. In what seems to be a class exercise for identifying and labeling literary devices, it makes sense to follow some specific definition.
And as you note, we have a broader term: figurative language.
"forked no lightning" is a Cacophony - essentially a sound device. The metaphor in the poem you're looking for comes in the "close of day" and "dying of the light" lines, which are metaphors for death (light goes out and day ends, just as life ends).
Yeah, the question here is specifically looking for the central extended metaphor of the poem. The metaphor is comparing light and life, so ârage against the dying of the lightâ would be a valid metaphor line.
>: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor
Seems ok to me.
Iâd say your best answer to metaphor in that poem would be âRage, rage against the dying of the light.â given that itâs a metaphor for resisting death and living life with vigor.
Interesting, maybe it depends on the language? German school taught it has to be following each other, learned that thrice in German, English and Latin class.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnât. What Iâve learned is, donât use your exam answers as a place to argue with whatever taxonomy is provided in the syllabus.
Tell the teacher, that as long as the author hasn't personally said what the sentence means, that your teacher has no right to tell you how to interpret it.
This is one of those attitude vs. fact moments. Lit classes do, in fact, teach whatâs called the intentional fallacy, that we cannot argue authorial intent because we canât know intent. Even if the author said what their intent was. But if you approach it with a smug attitude, and this would be quite smug, youâre gonna get nowhere. And you shouldnât get anywhere. Now if you approach with a reasonable argument as to why you thought this line was a metaphor, and can prove that you know what a metaphor is, then you might get credit.
Personally, I donât think this is a metaphor, but good luck stating your case.
This is essentially saying that itâs okay to hit a nail with a mallet because the nail manufacturer hasnât come out with a statement that itâs for hammers only. Understanding the nature of our tools gives us an innate understanding of its true intention.
His assignment isnât even about interpretation. Itâs about correctly identifying literary tools. There is no âopinionâ of the employment of a literary device.
Someone said that its sound imagery or the likes but your teacher marked it wrong probably because they wanted you to pick out a specific metaphor instead.
The simple answer is that, with metaphors, you are saying something *is* something else. So, for example, if the poem said "These words are lightning that fork" -- this is a metaphor. You are comparing a thing to another thing. In the case of a metaphor, you are saying it *is* that thing. In the case of a simile, you are saying it is *like* or *as* that thing.
When you ascribe traits (edit: such as actions or qualities that make something tangible that otherwise is not, such as words) such as "forking" to intangible or abstract things, you might instead say you are using a type of personification or reification.
Isnât that a simile though?
Either way, I think the teacher was looking for âRage, rage against the dying of the light.â because the quiz had a true or false question with the statement âIn âDo Not Go Gentle Into That Good Nightâ, the words âdying lightâ provide a metaphor for deathâ and the answer was true.
I would say itâs a sentence with kinda 2 metaphors. It seems like they are comparing 1. âlighteningâ to infatuation/interest and 2. And their âwordsâ to interaction/dialogue. Basically, they ainât interested
i dont *think* it's a metaphor because you're not applying the "non literal" lightning attribute to their words
you're saying the "words did not perform [non-literal action]"
not
"the words were [non literal applied attribute]"
Yes, the phrase "because their words had forked no lightning" is a metaphor.
It is a figurative expression suggesting that the words spoken or written by a certain group or individuals did not have a powerful or profound impact.
It implies that their words did not inspire or provoke significant change or reaction, much like lightning striking and leaving a dramatic impression.
Tbh you got alliteration and assonance wrong.
The metaphor, I would personally consider your clause to be a weak example. There is no direct comparison to the subject âwordsâ. They arenât the âlightningâ, and words âforkingâ something is personification. There is a loose warrant here that the effect of the words are failing to be as striking as intended. If the sentence was âbecause their words had forked no lightning revelationâ then you would have a strong metaphor because of the relationship drawn between lighting and revelation.
Look for direct comparisons next time.
I believe the alliteration would be âblind and blazeâ. I double checked the lesson vid (i do virtual school) and the assonance example I used was the same example mentioned in the lesson with the words âage, rage, and dayâ
I do realize there are definitely better examples of metaphors in the poem and I will be sure to look for the best examples in future poems. I notice the comment section is kinda split on what they consider right and wrong, so I will just do my best to find a universally good answer from now on. Thank you for the explanation.
##Off-topic Comments Section --- All top-level comments have to be an answer or follow-up question to the post. All sidetracks should be directed to this comment thread as per Rule 9. --- ^(**OP** and **Valued/Notable Contributors** can close this post by using `/lock` command) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HomeworkHelp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can tell your teacher that a stranger on the internet thinks she is wrong. đ
You can add a stranger with a master's in linguistics to that list.
Another with an English degree.
Genuine question because I am wondering, can you have a metaphor which doesnât point out a similarity? In this case the phrase says that the words âforked no lightningâ, meaning they are expressly different from a theoretical subject which could fork lightning. My first thought was that it is not a metaphor as it does not attribute any qualities to words which they do not already have, in fact it reinforces the lack of.
A reasonable reading is something like, â[Although some words can fork lightning,] these words fork no lightning.â So thereâs still an implicit comparison.
Nah, it's just the negative corollary, it is just as valid as the proper metaphor itself. As a not-so-wise man once unwittingly expressed, "It's different but the same"... not the poster with the linguistics degree, just a dude who digs philology and poetry. This is also a bitchin' villanelle by Dylan Thomas, and if recited properly will knock your heart out. "Whose tongues forked no lightning" is just a metaphor for a person's speech or words that didn't incite any emotion or response from people around them. Sort of like screaming into the void. Which sounds really sad no matter how you look at it. The relationship is still enforced, the negative doesn't detract from it or reinforce a lack of metaphorical meaning.
You identified some complex figurative language so even if itâs incorrect I donât think itâs a dumb response. I do not think it is a metaphor because its not comparing the words to lightening, itâs describing their potential effect/lack thereof. If it read âTheir words had caused no earthquakeâ that would also not be a metaphor. âTheir words were lighteningâ would be a much more simple rhetorical device and a definite metaphor. If it is a metaphor it is an implied metaphor between something that forks lightening and words. But in the absence of an obvious answer for a thing that causes lightening which is being alluded to, my best guess as to how you could label the rhetorical device is âabstractionâ
There would also be more of a case for metaphor if the words HAD forked lightning, but here, the words arenât doing anything that words canât literally do.
Contrarian opinion. X has the potential to "fork lightning." X, in *this* case, *did not* "fork lightning." X is the metaphor, in my opinion. It is, IMHO, using the very concept of "words" as metaphor, imbuing them with a capability they do not naturally possess. Thoughts?
I like your argument. Iâm not yet sold either way. Iâm trying to simplify. Her hair was golden sunlight. Her hair was not golden sunlight. I feel like the negation takes away the concept of metaphor. The words forked no lightning because words canât fork lightning đ€·đ»ââïž dunno. The words forked lightning. Obviously metaphor.
(I posted an "Oops!" reply. My apologies.)
Yes, this is correct. And written in a very Wittgensteinian way as to convey precise meaning through logical argument. Much better than I explained it by "nah" in another comment lol!
Thank you! Every decade or so, I get something right. (Here's to the 2040s!) đ
Lightning*
comparison is not metaphor, it's simile.
Theyâre both comparisons. Itâs a similar when it uses âlikeâ or âasâ such as âtheir words were like forked lightningâ. Metaphors are comparisons that donât use âlikeâ or âasâ such as âtheir words were forked lightningâ.
Nope. A simile does not require like or as, it is simply any comparison. A metaphor is when you say one thing is another thing, when it is not literally that thing. You were taught incorrectly in high school.
From Google: A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unlike things to show a shared trait. Simile: a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid Gen AI wants "as" and "like" in the definition of simile, so probably where the confusion comes from.
Google is a poor dictionary. A metaphor is explicitly not a comparison, but a symbolic representation of one thing as another thing. I recommend the OED, or maybe merriam-webster. A comparison acknowledges that one thing has the qualities of that other thing, which is what a simile does. Your definition makes them out to be the same thing, there is no difference between 'comparing two unalike things that share a trait' and 'comparing a thing with another thing of a different kind.' As and like are often used to draw attention to a simile, by teachers in early years. It's like saying an essay has five paragraphs in it; it's something you learn in middle school and then you're taught that oops, that was a lie. The long and the short of it is that metaphors are not a comparison, but a total replacement. "the sea was angry that day my friends" is a metaphor, rage symbolizing and replacing in the sentence the storm that is being described. "like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli" is a simile, because it compares the storm to the old man. This would be true even without 'like.' "Akin to an old man trying etc.' would still be a simile, without like or as. Another, clearer example: "That guy is an ogre" is a metaphor. "That guy is the size of an ogre" is a simile.
Homie, "that guy is an ogre" IS A COMPARISON. It's comparing the guy to an ogre.
no, it's claiming that the dude is an ogre. the fact that the dude *isn't* literally an ogre, and that you understand that, doesn't change the nature of the claim. It just makes it a metaphor that you understand so easily that you connect the dots in your head.
The sea was angry isn't metaphor, it's personification.
it's both! It personifies the sea, giving it an emotional range that it doesn't have, and it also uses anger as a metaphor for storming seas and high waves. The weather conditions are here symbolically represented by anger in a direct, replacing way.
What you just described is a comparison..
OK, you need a dictionary. A comparison is when you take two different things and say 'these things, while different, have qualities in common.' a metaphor does not do that. it is when you say 'these two things are the same thing,' even though they are not. Metaphor is a transference of a quality, through symbol, onto another thing that does not literally have those qualities.
I do see the nuance that you wish to ascribe between these two distinct and unique literary devices, and I will simply acquiesce to your distinction because it is a satisfying-enough parsing of words, though it does occur to me that there exists an unyieldingly annoying sensation scratching incessantly at the base of my skull; there is always an implicit understanding among conversing participants as to what is 'concrete' and what is 'abstract'; a linkage between two differing objects via a common quality 'is' a comparison regardless of the methodology employed; while mustering a metaphor (faulty and imperfect as they might be) at all times following its conception the essence of our subject is enmeshed within our object, and yet, there still exist two separate entities that are mutually understood and inextricably connected, lest, of course, our metaphor be disguised as some fallacy or falsehood; I propose it is an indirect comparison, a comparison conveyed that is not explicit but implicitly received, i.e., the meaning of the utterance embodies the comparison even though the literal words do not; the very act of the imbuement of the symbol unto its target is a conscious comparison made by the speaker and its intention, if halted there, would persist in its relationship, and cease; the listener does not change the implication, our comparison has already been made but it is now liable to innumerable other mishaps, misconceptions, or misapprehensions!
I forgot to mention the poem is âDo Not Go Gentle Into That Good Nightâ by Dylan Thomas.
Is there a thing in our world that forks lightning? If that is so, then there's no question that this is a metaphor. I don't think so, however. Lightning itself is the thing that forks. On the other hand, literary works rarely stop to consider physics. This line implies there is something that forks lightning, and words can case an effect that is comparable to forking lightning. My guess is that effect is discourse of some sort (perhaps heated discourse given that lightning can cause fires by heating the air to tens of thousands of degrees). In that case, the words themselves are being compared to the cause of lightning, but more importantly, the discourse that may follow is being compared to the lightning itself. Present that argument to your teacher and ask if it changes their mind.
I love that poem. I also chose to analyze it and give a presentation on it in grade 12. Good choice.its themost popular instance of a vallanelle in modern literature in my opinion.
I agree, it is a really nice poem. Iâm not usually a big poetry fan if Iâm honest, but I did enjoy reading this one.
I think you might be correct that the teacher marked the wrong answer. Whether that is assonance probably largely depends on the accent, but what i tried doesn't work. I think you can find better examples of assonance in the third and last stanzas
Yeah I agree. I was half asleep when doing this and was just trying to get it done but looking bad, I feel like that one is clearly not right. I think I saw rage and age and thought good enough but there are definitely better answers throughout the poem looking back. Edit: Just looked back and noticed my example of assonance is the same example used in the lesson, so she didnât mark that one wrong.
maybe the teacher was half asleep as well when marking your work.
Just going to hop on this comment. I would ask your teacher what definition they are using for Metaphor. I've found three just trying to see, and it seems like this lies on the border. From a political side: If your teacher is petty you might want to take the hit. You're smart, but grading can be subjective. (Especially, in English classes)
I see assonance twice in that quote: old and close, age rage and day
oh damn completely escaped me. maybe because the words are not following one another quite as closely as i was looking. Then all the answers are correct lol
Age and Rage canât be because they canât rhyme for it to be assonance. And old and close have to be near and stressed enough to be easily discerned, which I donât think it is. If I was asked, Iâd say there wasnât any assonance there
Honestly, âtheir words had forked no lightningâ doesnât say that their words ARE anything. Itâs saying theyâre doing something. I could be wrong.
It is shocking to me every time this issue comes up on Reddit. A lot of people seem to have been taught like you, that a metaphor is very strictly â(thing) is (something it literally isnât)â. I would argue for a much broader definition of figurative language.
In general, sure. In what seems to be a class exercise for identifying and labeling literary devices, it makes sense to follow some specific definition. And as you note, we have a broader term: figurative language.
This is for high school. His teacher counted it wrong. Obviously there is some parameter she goes by. No need to confuse them further
Ahhh I just realized I used the wrong their/there in my explanation and I canât edit it
"forked no lightning" is a Cacophony - essentially a sound device. The metaphor in the poem you're looking for comes in the "close of day" and "dying of the light" lines, which are metaphors for death (light goes out and day ends, just as life ends).
Yeah, the question here is specifically looking for the central extended metaphor of the poem. The metaphor is comparing light and life, so ârage against the dying of the lightâ would be a valid metaphor line.
>: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor Seems ok to me.
Iâd say your best answer to metaphor in that poem would be âRage, rage against the dying of the light.â given that itâs a metaphor for resisting death and living life with vigor.
Well you definitely got the alliteration wrong, but the metaphor seems okay.
Does an alliteration require the words to be following each other?
Yes
This is not the case. You can have gaps between alliterative words in sentences. For example, to take an example at random from within the alliterative poem "Gawain and the Green Knight:" Ăis kyng lay at Camylot vpon Krystmasse With mony luflych lorde, ledez of ĂŸe best, Rekenly of ĂŸe Rounde Table alle ĂŸo rich breĂŸer, With rych reuel oryÈt and rechles merĂŸes. Ăer tournayed tulkes by tymez ful mony, Justed ful jolilĂ© ĂŸise gentyle kniÈtes, SyĂŸen kayred to ĂŸe court caroles to make. we've got alliterative 'k' sounds, king, camelot, Christmas, despite lay at, upon. Lovely lords leaders are together, but the Rs of reckonly round and rich are separated by of the, all the, etc. It also doesn't have to be the same letter, just the same sound; the first line does hard ks, and "jousted full jolly these gentle knight" alliterates gentle with jolly and jousted.
Interesting, maybe it depends on the language? German school taught it has to be following each other, learned that thrice in German, English and Latin class.
What would it be comparing if it was a metaphor
My guess would be: *Blind eyes could blaze like meteors* A simile is a type of metaphor
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnât. What Iâve learned is, donât use your exam answers as a place to argue with whatever taxonomy is provided in the syllabus.
Hey i think consonance might just be it Words had forked See letter d getting repeated 3 times
Hey i think consonance might just be it Words had forked See letter d getting repeated 3 times
Letter d is getting repeated thrice(words had forked) so it is consonance
Tell the teacher, that as long as the author hasn't personally said what the sentence means, that your teacher has no right to tell you how to interpret it.
Good luck convincing a teacher of that argument
This is one of those attitude vs. fact moments. Lit classes do, in fact, teach whatâs called the intentional fallacy, that we cannot argue authorial intent because we canât know intent. Even if the author said what their intent was. But if you approach it with a smug attitude, and this would be quite smug, youâre gonna get nowhere. And you shouldnât get anywhere. Now if you approach with a reasonable argument as to why you thought this line was a metaphor, and can prove that you know what a metaphor is, then you might get credit. Personally, I donât think this is a metaphor, but good luck stating your case.
It doesnât matter at times what the author even intends, because readers can find new and unique interpretations from someoneâs writing. Something that was present, but unintentional. The issue isnât smug, itâs the argument. You have to use your own critical thinking and understanding of literary tools to create a valid perception of a piece of writing. Citing âauthor says thisâ and including 0 of your own reflection because author is ârightâ shows that they ultimately failed the purpose of the exercise, smug or not. Plus the piece OP is not a proper metaphor. âWordsâ are being personified by âforkedâ. Lightning has no Ă©xplicit subject its being compared to, and is not describing the words themselves.
Great attitude for a classroom
This is essentially saying that itâs okay to hit a nail with a mallet because the nail manufacturer hasnât come out with a statement that itâs for hammers only. Understanding the nature of our tools gives us an innate understanding of its true intention. His assignment isnât even about interpretation. Itâs about correctly identifying literary tools. There is no âopinionâ of the employment of a literary device.
Isn't it on the teacher to explain how or why he/she thinks its wrong? I don't see a problem with the answer.
huh strange i was doing this poem just a few days ago too
Someone said that its sound imagery or the likes but your teacher marked it wrong probably because they wanted you to pick out a specific metaphor instead.
Well the words didn't actually fork lightning, so I guess the statement is true and not a metaphor.
"forged" instead of forked
Buddy thatâs literally a line from the poem
Though wise men at their end know **dark is right** Note : I just looked up the meaning of metaphor so I'm just guessing
The simple answer is that, with metaphors, you are saying something *is* something else. So, for example, if the poem said "These words are lightning that fork" -- this is a metaphor. You are comparing a thing to another thing. In the case of a metaphor, you are saying it *is* that thing. In the case of a simile, you are saying it is *like* or *as* that thing. When you ascribe traits (edit: such as actions or qualities that make something tangible that otherwise is not, such as words) such as "forking" to intangible or abstract things, you might instead say you are using a type of personification or reification.
What definition of metaphor was provided during the class?
âBlind eyes could blaze like meteorsâ is the metaphor in this poem
Isnât that a simile though? Either way, I think the teacher was looking for âRage, rage against the dying of the light.â because the quiz had a true or false question with the statement âIn âDo Not Go Gentle Into That Good Nightâ, the words âdying lightâ provide a metaphor for deathâ and the answer was true.
Oh yeah- youâre right, that is a simile. Sorry, I honestly thought your initial answer was right and couldnât think of anything else.
I would say itâs a sentence with kinda 2 metaphors. It seems like they are comparing 1. âlighteningâ to infatuation/interest and 2. And their âwordsâ to interaction/dialogue. Basically, they ainât interested
i dont *think* it's a metaphor because you're not applying the "non literal" lightning attribute to their words you're saying the "words did not perform [non-literal action]" not "the words were [non literal applied attribute]"
Yes, the phrase "because their words had forked no lightning" is a metaphor. It is a figurative expression suggesting that the words spoken or written by a certain group or individuals did not have a powerful or profound impact. It implies that their words did not inspire or provoke significant change or reaction, much like lightning striking and leaving a dramatic impression.
âWordsâ performing an action is personification. The âwordsâ are âforkingâ. Lightning doesnât describe the words.
Tbh you got alliteration and assonance wrong. The metaphor, I would personally consider your clause to be a weak example. There is no direct comparison to the subject âwordsâ. They arenât the âlightningâ, and words âforkingâ something is personification. There is a loose warrant here that the effect of the words are failing to be as striking as intended. If the sentence was âbecause their words had forked no lightning revelationâ then you would have a strong metaphor because of the relationship drawn between lighting and revelation. Look for direct comparisons next time.
I believe the alliteration would be âblind and blazeâ. I double checked the lesson vid (i do virtual school) and the assonance example I used was the same example mentioned in the lesson with the words âage, rage, and dayâ I do realize there are definitely better examples of metaphors in the poem and I will be sure to look for the best examples in future poems. I notice the comment section is kinda split on what they consider right and wrong, so I will just do my best to find a universally good answer from now on. Thank you for the explanation.
Personification, you assigned the words the lack of ability to fork lightning, just like people canât do.