After reading “See Through Words,” I could understand the points Michael Erard made, however, I feel as if most of them only apply in his work field. It makes sense that cognitive response is valued higher to him, as that’s what his work requires him to do so. In an environment where creating something to better explain another, this makes sense. However, in a literary concept, this is different. Literature begs its reader to think and ponder, and find their own meaning through the text, therefore, it would make sense to avoid conceptual and dual reference. So, to compare the two, it almost makes no sense. There’s a different purpose.
For instance, Erard uses the example of “paintbrush as pump.” After researchers came to the conclusion as such, it led to new development. Like Erard, their purpose was to market and produce. Therefore, this metaphor works. But to a writer, their purpose is to create in a different sense. A writer paints imagery and exposes its readers to new findings. Therefore, saying “the best metaphor needs no furniture” can’t apply to both circumstances.
I am so interested to read how you’ve immediately distinguished between a writer’s interest in metaphor and a “metaphor designer’s” interest in metaphor. I think this reaction is worth further exploring. Do you think their interests would overlap at all?
As you upload future images, please reference this tutorial so that I can easily enlarge your pictures: https://uneportfolio.org/adding-pictures-to-eportfolio/. From what I can see, your annotations are off to a great start. I LOVE that you are critically engaging with the material–you are making difficult and complicated distinctions. Keep that up!