When figurative language is bad

[sartorias]

The other day I posted Jane Austen's writing advice clipped from her letters to a writing niece. Afterwards, I got three different people writing me privately to ask, basically, what is so bad about figurative language

Comments

[whswhs]

I have to say that I think writer B has things backward. His point about the uselessness of "very" is well taken. But what's going on with "his heart was touched" is not that it's figurative but that it has ceased to be figurative, in a fashion that happens constantly with language, to the point where nearly every word in the English language started out as a metaphor.

In this case, "heart" is Webster's meaning 5, "one's innermost character, feelings, or inclinations," which seems to have come out of 6b, "the essential or most vital part of something," and before that out of 6a, "the central or innermost part." Perhaps with an nudge from Julian Jaynes's ideas about the "heart" being a word for certain psychological functions because certain emotions make our hearts beat faster or harder. And "touch" seems to be Webster's 14b, "to move to sympathetic feeling," which is akin to 14a, "to hurt the feelings of: WOUND." These are not metaphors; they are part of the dictionary meanings of the words-meanings they have taken on, to be sure, as a product of the past metaphorical use of the primary senses of the words, but the author is not making up a figure of speech. "His innermost feelings were moved to sympathetic feeling" is a perfectly accurate description for what's going on.

The sentence can be criticized for its use of the passive voice; there seems no reason not to say, "It touched his heart," or "Her words touched his heart," or "Her trouble touched his heart." And it can certainly be criticized for using a habitual phrase and trying to brighten it up with an emphasizer instead of finding a new phrase. But going on about surgeons is just being pissy.

[sartorias]

And I vaguely recall someone pointing that out from the audience--and if I recollect right, quoting Shakespeare. But 'very heart' no one defended.

[houseboatonstyx]

The sentence can be criticized for its use of the passive voice; there seems no reason not to say, "It touched his heart," or "Her words touched his heart," or "Her trouble touched his heart."

'It' usually needs an antecedent, and you've supplied a couple: 'her words' and 'her trouble'. But suppose several things are happening at once: her words, her tone, her appearance, his knowledge of her situation, her baby crying in the background, the overflowing basket of dirty laundry she was trying to finish, his memory of what her mother had said about something, his memory of their good times together, etc.

After a paragraph or two showing all this (plus a few chapters showing them having the former good times) to say "Her words touched his heart" or even "Her trouble touched his heart" would be a little flat, maybe. Or with all that going on would he focus on that detail, or even on a concept such as "her trouble"? So why confuse the effect by putting in 'it'?

(This doesn't fit with "It's raining" or "It seems to me", either.)