Online dating (or Internet dating) is a system that enables strangers to find and introduce themselves to new personal connections over the, usually with the goal of developing personal, romantic, or sexual relationships. An online dating service is a company that provides specific mechanisms (generally websites or applications) for online dating through the use of Internet-connected or mobile devices. Such companies offer a wide variety of services, most of which are profile-based. Oct 11, 2013. Don't write to impress yourself. When you craft your online dating profile, you write with a specific kind of guy or gal in mind. Think the same way when you're reworking that resume of yours. Remember you're writing (and rewriting) for the person you hope to meet or the company you hope will hire you. Let's look at some straight metaphor examples. Perhaps one of the most commonly cited examples of a metaphor in. Realistic Dialogue Writing Tips and Examples. How do I write about myself on a dating website? Instead of trying to describe yourself. I've been writing online dating profiles for people since 2009. Aug 14, 2012. A metaphor is a little bit of writing magic that allows you, the writer, to draw an unexpected line between two unlike things. Still here, but way past its expiration date. The symbol never draws the line — it just casually gestures in the direction of the other thing, hoping you'll connect the dots yourself. Oct 30, 2014 After three months of dating, 23-year-old Michael was optimistic about his relationship with Linda*. They were together often, and he'd even met her. Jan 18, 2017. As you write your profile, use these online dating profile examples as inspiration and keep these tips in mind. (I started teaching myself piano last year and am loving the challenge so far.). In the past, online dating profiles read almost like a resume—the point was to outline everything about yourself. Actual examples of women's. When you oversell yourself as the. The root cause of contemporary egocentric dating-profile-writing is that it’s. A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison. Nov 24, 2017. Write about yourself for dating sites examples of metaphors A big question for new online daters is, how to describe yourself in your dating profile? Obviously it's critical to get it right and describe yourself Would you like to see examples of profile descriptions of yourself and your ideal match? Here are some. Three dating profile writing samples for the About Me section. Profile Writing Samples – About Me Section. Posted on September 26. Know How to Market Yourself. Online dating services allow users to become 'members' by creating a profile and uploading personal information including (but not limited to) age, gender, sexual orientation, location, and appearance. Most services also encourage members to add photos or videos to their profile. Once a profile has been created, members can view the profiles of other members of the service, using the visible profile information to decide whether or not to initiate contact. Most services offer digital messaging, while others provide additional services such as,, telephone chat (), and. Members can constrain their interactions to the online space, or they can arrange a to meet in person. A great diversity of online dating services currently exists. Some have a broad membership base of diverse users looking for many different types of relationships. Other sites target highly specific demographics based on features like shared interests, location, religion, or relationship type. Online dating services also differ widely in their revenue streams. Some sites are completely free and depend on advertising for revenue. Others utilize the revenue model, offering free registration and use, with optional, paid, premium services. Still others rely solely on paid membership subscriptions. Opinions and usage of online dating services also differ widely. A 2005 study of data collected by the found that individuals are more likely to use an online dating service if they use the Internet for a greater number of tasks, and less likely to use such a service if they are trusting of others. It is possible that the mode of online dating resonates with some participants' conceptual orientation towards the process of finding a romantic partner. That is, online dating sites use the conceptual framework of a 'marketplace metaphor' to help people find potential matches, with layouts and functionalities that make it easy to quickly browse and select profiles in a manner similar to how one might browse an online store. Under this metaphor, members of a given service can both 'shop' for potential relationship partners and 'sell' themselves in hopes of finding a successful match. Since the 2010s, Internet dating has become more popular with smartphones. At the end of November 2004, there were 844 lifestyle and dating sites, a 38% increase since the start of the year, according to Hitwise Inc. The stigma associated with online dating dropped over the years and people view online dating more positively. The 2006 on Online Dating noted an increase in usage of online dating sites by Americans to pursue their romantic interests. About one in ten respondents reported visiting these online dating websites. In 2005–2012, about 34.95% of Americans reported meeting their spouses online. The 2016 Pew Research Center's survey reveals that the usage of online dating sites by American adults increased from 9% in 2013, to 12% in 2015. Further, during this period, the usage among 18- to 24-year-olds tripled, while that among 55- to 65-year-olds doubled. Online daters may have more liberal social attitudes compared to the general population in the United States. According to a 2015 study by the, 80% of the users, and 55% of non-users, said that online dating sites are a good way to meet potential partners. In addition, respondents felt that online dating is easier, more efficient than other methods, and gives access to a larger pool of potential partners. Increased dating and marriage outside traditional social circles may be a contributing factor to coincident societal changes, including rising rates of interracial marriage. On the other hand, about 45% respondents felt that online dating is more dangerous compared to other methods. Views on online dating were similar across genders, with women expressing more concerns about safety than men. Niche dating sites [ ] Sites with specific demographics have become popular as a way to narrow the pool of potential matches. Successful niche sites pair people by race, sexual orientation or religion. In March 2008, the top 5 overall sites held 7% less market share than they did one year ago while the top sites from the top five major niche dating categories made considerable gains. Niche sites cater to people with special interests, such as sports fans, racing and automotive fans, medical or other professionals, people with political or religious preferences (e.g., Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.), people with medical conditions (e.g., HIV+, obese), or those living in rural farm communities. Online introduction services [ ] In 2008, a variation of the online dating model emerged in the form of introduction sites, where members have to search and contact other members, who introduce them to other members whom they deem compatible. Introduction sites differ from the traditional online dating model, and attracted a large number of users and significant investor interest. Economic trends [ ] Since 2003, several free dating sites, operating on ad based-revenue rather than monthly subscriptions, have appeared and become increasingly popular. [ ] Other partially free online dating services offer only limited privileges for free members, or only for a brief period. [ ] Although some sites offer free trials and/or profiles, most memberships can cost upwards of $60 per month. In 2008, online dating services in the United States generated $957 million in revenue. In Eastern Europe, popular sites offer full access to messaging and profiles, but provide additional services for pay, such as prioritizing profile position, removing advertisements, and giving paying users access to a more advanced search engine. Such sites earn revenue from a mix of advertising and sale of additional options. This model also allows users to switch between free and paying status at will, with sites accepting a variety of online currencies and payment options. [ ] Most free dating websites depend on revenue, using tools such as and. Since advertising revenues are modest compared to membership fees, this model requires a large number of to achieve profitability. However, describes dating sites as ideal advertising platforms because of the wealth of demographic data made available by users. Controversy [ ] Trust and safety [ ] There are mixed opinions regarding the safety of online dating. Over 50% of research participants in a 2011 study did not view online dating as a dangerous activity, whereas 43% thought that online dating involved risk. Because online dating takes place in virtual space, it is possible for profile information to be misrepresented or falsified. While some sites conduct on members, many do not, resulting in some uncertainty around members' identities. For instance, some profiles may not represent real humans but rather 'bait profiles' placed online by site owners to attract new paying members, or 'spam profiles' created by advertisers to market services and products. Profiles created by real humans also have the potential to be problematic. For example, online dating sites may expose more female members in particular to,, and. [ ] A less malicious form of misrepresentation is that members may lie about their height, weight, age, or marital status in an attempt to market or brand themselves in a particular way. Users may also carefully manipulate profiles as a form of. Online dating site members may try to balance an accurate representation with maintaining their image in a desirable way. One study found that nine out of ten participants had lied on at least one attribute, though lies were often slight; weight was the most lied about attribute, and age was the least lied about. Furthermore, knowing a large amount of superficial information about a potential partner's interests may lead to a false sense of security when meeting up with a new person. Gross misrepresentation may be less likely on than on casual dating sites. Some dating services have been created specifically for those living with HIV and other STIs in an effort to eliminate the need to lie about one's health in order to find a partner. Media coverage of crimes related to online dating may also contribute to perceptions of its risks. [ ] However, online dating may also have advantages over conventional (offline) dating in that it offers unprecedented access to potential partners for singles who otherwise would not have such access. The emergence of dating sites that promote adultery, such as, has stirred some controversy. Marriage breakups happened in about 6% of online couples, compared to 7.6% of offline ones. [ ] Mean marital satisfaction scores were 5.64 and 5.48 for the online and offline couples, respectively. [ ] [ ] Billing [ ] Online subscription-based services can suffer from complaints about billing practices. Some online dating service providers may have fraudulent membership fees or credit card charges. Some sites do not allow members to preview available profiles before paying a subscription fee. Furthermore, different functionalities may be offered to members who have paid or not paid for subscriptions, resulting in some confusion around who can view or contact whom. Consolidation within the online dating industry has led to different newspapers and magazines now advertising the same website under different names. In the UK, for example, ('London Dating'), ('Encounters'), and ('Kindred Spirits'), all offer differently named portals to the same service—meaning that a person who subscribes through more than one publication has unwittingly paid more than once for access to the same service. Imbalanced gender ratios [ ] On any given dating site, the is commonly unbalanced. A website may have two women for every man, but they may be in the 35+ range, while the men are generally under 35. [ ] Little is known about the sex ratio controlled for age. 's membership is about 57% female and 43% male, whereas the ratio at is about the reverse of that. When one gets into the specialty niche websites where the primary demographic is male, one typically gets a very unbalanced ratio of male to female or female to male. Studies have suggested that men are far more likely to send messages on dating sites than women. In addition, men tend to message the most attractive women regardless of their own attractiveness. This leads to the most attractive women on these sites receiving an overwhelming number of messages, which can in some cases result in them leaving the site. There is some evidence that there may be differences in how women online rate male attractiveness as opposed to how men rate female attractiveness. The distribution of ratings given by men of female attractiveness appears to be the, while ratings of men given by women is highly skewed, with 80% of men rated as below average. This shows that women are genuinely more picky than men when it comes to appearance on online dating websites. Discrimination [ ] groups have complained that certain websites that restrict their dating services to heterosexual couples are discriminating against. Homosexual customers of the popular dating website have made many attempts to litigate discriminatory practices. EHarmony was sued in 2007 by a claiming that '[s]uch outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age.' In light of discrimination by sexual orientation by dating websites, some services such as and cater more to homosexual dating. In addition, many sites require members to specify what sex they are looking for without having the option 'both', which complicates things for. Many sites also require members to specify themselves as either 'male' or 'female', complicating matters for and individuals. Less than half of Internet daters are open to dating people of all races. Consistent with the and theories, Asians, Latinos and blacks are more open to dating whites than whites are to dating them. Of those who state a racial preference, 97% of white men exclude black women, 48% exclude Latinas, and 53% exclude Asian women. In contrast, white men are excluded by 76% of black women, 33% Latinas, and only 11% Asian women. Similarly, 92% of white women exclude black men, 77% exclude Latinos, and 93% exclude Asian men. 71% of black men, 31% of Latinos, and 36% of Asian men excluded white women. Lawsuits filed against online dating services [ ] A 2011 class action lawsuit alleged failed to remove inactive profiles, did not accurately disclose the number of active members, and does not police its site for fake profiles; the inclusion of expired and spam profiles as valid served to both artificially inflate the total number of profiles and camouflage a skewed gender ratio in which active users were disproportionately single males. The suit claimed up to 60 percent were inactive profiles, fake or fraudulent users. Some of the spam profiles were alleged to be using images of porn actresses, models, or people from other dating sites. Former employees alleged Match routinely and intentionally over-represented the number of active members on the website and a huge percentage were not real members but 'filler profiles'. A 2012 class action against ended with a November 2014 jury award of $1.4 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. SuccessfulMatch operated a dating site for people with STDs,, which it advertised as offering a 'fully anonymous profile' which is '100% confidential'. The company failed to disclose that it was placing those same profiles on a long list of affiliate site domains such as GayPozDating.com, AIDSDate.com, HerpesInMouth.com, ChristianSafeHaven.com, MeetBlackPOZ.com, HIVGayMen.com, STDHookup.com, BlackPoz.com, and PositivelyKinky.com. This falsely implied that those users were black, Christian, gay, HIV-positive or members of other groups with which the registered members did not identify. The jury found PositiveSingles guilty of fraud, malice, and oppression as the plaintiffs' race, sexual orientation, HIV status, and religion were misrepresented by exporting each dating profile to niche sites associated with each trait. In 2013, a former employee sued adultery website claiming repetitive strain injuries as creating 1000 fake profiles in one three week span 'required an enormous amount of keyboarding' which caused the worker to develop severe pain in her wrists and forearms. AshleyMadison's parent company,, in 2014, alleging the worker kept confidential documents, including copies of her 'work product and training materials.' The firm claimed the fake profiles were for 'quality assurance testing' to test a new Brazilian version of the site for 'consistency and reliability.' In January 2014, an already-married user attempting to close a pop-up advertisement for Zoosk.com found that one click instead copied personal info from her Facebook profile to create an unwanted online profile seeking a mate, leading to a flood of unexpected responses from amorous single males. In 2014, was the target of a New York class action alleging as IJL staff relied on a uniform, misleading script which informed prospective customers during initial interviews that IJL already had at least two matches in mind for those customers' first dates regardless of whether or not that was true. In 2014, the US fined UK-based (a group of 18 websites, including Cupidswand.com and FlirtCrowd.com) over 600000, finding that 'the defendants offered a free plan that allowed users to set up a profile with personal information and photos. As soon as a new user set up a free profile, he or she began to receive messages that appeared to be from other members living nearby, expressing romantic interest or a desire to meet. However, users were unable to respond to these messages without upgrading to a paid membership. [t]he messages were almost always from fake, computer-generated profiles — 'Virtual Cupids' — created by the defendants, with photos and information designed to closely mimic the profiles of real people.' The FTC also found that paid memberships were being renewed without client authorisation. In 2017 Darlene Daggett QVC's president for U.S. Commerce from 2002 to 2007, filed a lawsuit against matchmaking agency Kelleher International. The company, owned by Amber Kelleher-Andrews agreed to settle within hours of Daggett filing the lawsuit. Neither talked about the case, citing a non-disclosure agreement, but Daggett's lawsuit gives plenty of detail about her grievances with the California-based company. 'Due to her senior level position in a local firm, [she] felt that social dating sites did not provide her with the degree of screening and privacy she was looking for,' the lawsuit states. She opted in for the company's most expensive plan, the $150,000 CEO level, which guaranteed her matches from around the world and the personal attention of Kelleher-Andrews. But Daggett says she did not get what she paid for. Instead, she suffered brief romantic entanglements with increasingly disastrous men. Government regulation [ ] U.S. Government regulation of dating services began with the (IMBRA) which took effect in March 2007 after a federal judge in Georgia upheld a challenge from the dating site European Connections. The law requires dating services meeting specific criteria—including having as their primary business to connect U.S. Citizens/residents with foreign nationals—to conduct, among other procedures, sex offender checks on U.S. Customers before contact details can be provided to the non-U.S. In 2008, the state of New Jersey passed a law which requires the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks. In the, transnational matchmaking is illegal. The prohibits the business of organizing or facilitating marriages between Filipinas and foreign men under the (the Anti-Mail-Order Bride Law) of June 13, 1990; this law is routinely circumvented by basing websites outside the country. Singapore's is the governmental organization facilitating dating activities in the country. Singapore's government has actively acted as a matchmaker for singles for the past few decades, and thus only 4% of Singaporeans have ever used an online dating service, despite the country's high rate of internet penetration. [ ] In December 2010, a Law called the 'Internet Dating Safety Act' (S5180-A) went into effect that requires online dating sites with customers in New York State to warn users not to disclose personal information to people they do not know. In popular culture [ ] •, a 1998 film in which the two protagonists conduct a relationship entirely over e-mail before meeting each other. •, a 2004 film in a which one subplot involves a central character's online (and later in-person) relationship. •, a 2004 film in which the central character has a relationship wholly via email with a girl from Berlin. •, a 2005 film about two people trying to find love through online dating. •, a 2007 film in which a mother creates an online dating profile for her daughter. •, a 2008 film about a young man who goes on a cross-country roadtrip with friends to meet his internet crush, and woo her with his brother's stolen GTO. •, a play which revolves around Jewish dating service •, a 2010 documentary film in which a group of men travel to Ukraine on a romance tour arranged by online dating service. •, a reality TV-show that premiered on MTV in 2012. Notable online dating sites [ ] • • • • • • (Jewish singles) • • • • • (for Indian singles) • See also [ ]. • Brian Anthony Hernandez 7 (2011-12-13).. Retrieved 2012-07-17. • Kang, Tanya; Lindsay H. Hoffman (2011). 'Why Would You Decide to Use an Online Dating Site? Factors That Lead to Online Dating'.. 28 (3): 205.. • Heino, R.; N. Gibbs (2010). 'Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating'.: 427–447. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2017-04-02. • ^ Madden, Mary; Am; Lenhart, a (2006-03-05).. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 2017-04-01. • Ansari, Aziz; Klinenberg, Eric (2015-06-16). Modern Romance. Penguin Press... CS1 maint: ASIN uses ISBN () • ^ Smith, Aaron (2016-02-11).. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 2017-04-01. • Madden, Mary; Lenhart, Amanda (September 2005).. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 2010-12-08. Online daters tend to identify with more liberal social attitudes, compared with all Americans or all internet users. • Ortega, Josue; Hergovich, Philipp (2017). 'The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating'.: []. Retrieved 2010-05-20. • Sullivan, J. New York Times. Retrieved 2006-04-28. Retrieved 2006-04-24. Retrieved 2014-01-02. Retrieved 2013-03-17. Computer World. Retrieved 2014-01-02. • Levitt, Steven (2013-04-18).. Retrieved 2014-01-02. • Couch, Danielle; Liamputtong, Pranee; Pitts, Marian (2011). 'Online Daters and the Use of Technology for Surveillance and Risk Management'. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society 9 (2): p 116–134. • Jones, Cher (March 16, 2014).. • Couch, Danielle; Pranee Liamputtong (2008). 'Online Dating and Mating: The Use of the Internet to Meet Sexual Partners'. Qualitative Health Research. • Ellison, Nicole; Rebecca Heino; Jennifer Gibbs (2006). 'Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment'. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (2): 415–441.. • Hancock, Jeffrey (2007). 'The truth about lying in online dating profiles'. • Williams, Alex (2013-01-11).. The New York Times. • Mazanderani, F. 7 (4): 393–409.. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Retrieved 2015-12-14. Retrieved 2015-12-14. Retrieved 21 November 2007. Jon Millward. Retrieved 2015-12-14. • Kreager, Derek A.; Cavanagh, Shannon E.; Yen, John; Yu, Mo (2014-04-01).. Journal of marriage and the family. 76 (2): 387–410..... • Christian Rudder.. • Buss, Dale (28 November 2008).. Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition. Retrieved 31 October 2013. • Yancey, George (2009). 'Cross racial differences in the racial preference of potential dating partners'.: 121–143. • Robnett, Belinda; Feliciano, Cynthia (2011-05-04).. Social Forces. 89 (3): 807–828... • Feliciano, Cynthia; Robnett, Belinda; Komaie, Golnaz. Social Science Research. 4 January 2011. Dallas Business Journal. 4 January 2011. (5 January 2011).. 10 November 2013. Slate Magazine. • Elizabeth Flock.. US News & World Report. Out & About Nashville. Herpes Dating. Aaron Kelly law firm. The Daily Dot. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 November 2013. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 23 March 2014. • Marchitelli, Rosa (24 November 2014)... US Federal Trade Commission. 29 October 2014. • Collman, Ashley (9 August 2017).. Retrieved 18 September 2017. • Aytes, Michael (July 21, 2006). Retrieved 2012-11-11. Retrieved 2014-01-02. • 马玉佳 (2011-08-30).. Retrieved 2014-01-02. • Beeks, Karen; Amir, Delila (2006)... Retrieved 2013-04-16. • Nicole Constable (2003-08-19)... Retrieved 2013-04-16. • Mae Ryan (26 September 2012).. Retrieved 9 December 2014. Retrieved 2014-01-02. Further reading [ ] •. Chuck is the author of the published novels: Blackbirds, Mockingbird, Under the Empyrean Sky, Blue Blazes, Double Dead, Bait Dog, Dinocalypse Now, Beyond Dinocalypse and Gods & Monsters: Unclean Spirits. He also the author of the soon-to-be-published novels: The Cormorant, Blightborn (Heartland Book #2), Heartland Book #3, Dinocalypse Forever, Frack You, and The Hellsblood Bride. Also coming soon is his compilation book of writing advice from this very blog: The Kick-Ass Writer, coming from Writers Digest. He, along with writing partner Lance Weiler, is an alum of the Sundance Film Festival Screenwriter’s Lab (2010). Their short film, Pandemic, showed at the Sundance Film Festival 2011, and their feature film HiM is in development with producers Ted Hope and Anne Carey. Together they co-wrote the digital transmedia drama Collapsus, which was nominated for an International Digital Emmy and a Games 4 Change award. Chuck has contributed over two million words to the game industry, and was the developer of the popular Hunter: The Vigil game line (White Wolf Game Studios / CCP). He was a frequent contributor to The Escapist, writing about games and pop culture. Much of his writing advice has been collected in various writing- and storytelling-related e-books. He currently lives in the forests of Pennsyltucky with wife, two dogs, and tiny human. He is likely drunk and untrustworthy. This blog is NSFW and probably NSFL. You may reach him at terribleminds [at] gmail [dot] com. Comparing Two Unlike Things A metaphor is a little bit of writing magic that allows you, the writer, to draw an unexpected line between two unlike things. You are comparing and connecting things that have no business being compared or connected. How is a wasp like an auto mechanic? A banana like a storm cloud? How do you talk about a nuclear winter while evoking a beautiful symphony? The metaphor is the writer holding up one thing (“a double-headed dildo”) and asking — nay, demanding — that the reader think of something else (“a floppy slice of freshly-baked zucchini bread”). It is a subversion of expectation; a sabotage of imagery. Metaphor is metamorphosis. You can tell that’s true because they both have “meta” and “pho.” Or something. Because Comparing Two Samey Things Is Silly A metaphor fails if it’s obvious. Comparing two alike things is meaningless in terms of providing engagement and enlightenment to the audience. “That horse is like a donkey” simply isn’t meaningful. We already know that. We describe the things that need describing. You wouldn’t say, “This double-headed dildo is like a single-headed dildo” and call that a metaphor. All you’re doing there is thwacking the audience about the head and neck with your +5 Double-Headed Dildo of Obviousness. Literarily, Not Literally Further, a metaphor is not to be taken literally. “A snake is like a worm” is literally true, and thus fails as a metaphor. Metaphors operate best as purely figurative. Life is not literally a bowl of cherries. The power of metaphor is in its ability to transcend the real; in this way, metaphor is like an artsy-fartsy version of sarcasm. It is a beautiful lie. I say one thing, but I mean another. Simile Versus Metaphor A simile uses like or as to connect things; a metaphor eschews both words. Simile: “My love for you is like old lunchmeat. Still here, but way past its expiration date.” Metaphor: “My love for you is a zombie. Dead but still walking around.” The simile creates a little distance; this is like that. Not same, but similar. A metaphor undercuts that distance. This is that. Not just similar, but absolutely (though abstractly) the same. A PhD in Symbology Metaphors and symbols are not the same thing. A metaphor is stated outright. I don’t hide from it. When I say that “her vagina is like the blown-out elastic in a pair of old underpants,” or, “his dick is like soft serve,” I’m not trying to hide what I think or feel. I’m shoving the imagery right into your eyeholes. A symbol is far cagier, far more guarded. A character who symbolizes something (sin, colonialism, addiction, zoo-keepers, reality television) does so in an unspoken way. The author never takes the time to complete that picture. A metaphor draws the line between two unlike things. The symbol never draws the line — it just casually gestures in the direction of the other thing, hoping you’ll connect the dots yourself. Take Literary Viagra To Extend Your Metaphors A metaphor that kicks open the door to its cage and runs around a little before being put down is an extended metaphor, or a “conceit.” It refuses to be kept to a single iteration, and will get its roots and shoots all up into the paragraph where it initially appeared. The metaphor continues — it’s not enough to say that “urban development is like a cancer” and leave it at that. The metaphor grows and swells, blister-like, using the whole paragraph to explore the metaphor to its fullest: gentrification is metastasis, developers are like free radicals, rich guys like tumors, and so on and so forth. Elegance In Simplicity Err on the side of simplicity rather than complexity. The weightier and more Byzantine a metaphor becomes, the more likely that it becomes unstable, untenable, overwrought. When I say, “John’s a dinosaur,” the message is clear: he’s old-school, probably too old-school, and if he’s not careful he’s going to get face-punched by a fucking meteor. But I don’t need to say all those things. I don’t need to beat the metaphor into the ground until it’s a pulpy, shitty mess; it’s not a watermelon, and I’m not Gallagher. The audience wants to do work. They want to take the metaphor and help draw the line. Hand them a simple machine, not a Rube Goldberg device. Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge Some metaphors are implied. When you say, “Gary’s coming for you, Bill — that guy can smell blood in the water from a mile away,” we’re using a metaphor to imply that Gary is a shark, but without actually saying that he’s a shark. The power here is in letting the audience bring a little something to the table. The danger here is you reach too far and fail to make the implication click. Broken Metaphors Are Brick Walls Some metaphors just don’t work. You maybe think they do, because in your head you’ve drawn a line that makes sense to you and well, nobody else, you fuckin’ goon. The reader’s sitting there, scratching his head, wondering just what the hell a blue heron has to do with a head cold and what happens is, it stops the reader dead. Every component of your writing is binary — it’s either a 1 or a 0, it’s either Go, Dog, Go, or Guy Running Full Speed Into A Tree. It’s lubricant (facilitates the reader reading), or a fist (forces the reader to stop). A broken metaphor asks the reader to stand over the confounding imagery, chewing on it the way one must jaw hard on a hunk of gristly steak. Make sure you’re not putting out metaphors that are clear to you and only you. Think of the reader, not of the writer. That was truly educational. The neuroscience support of fiction rocks my world, too. I love metaphors, but I see some that just don’t work from newer writers. It’s tricky to explain to someone who doesn’t seem to get it why certain metaphors don’t work. “His mouth was as dry as scorched toast.” I just couldn’t stop thinking that the inside of his mouth was black and crunchy and HOLY HELL, SHOULDN’T HE BE GOING TO THE ER? Also, love love love the binary analogy. That’s exactly right. I had never limited it to just those two options. I shall quote you like mad in the future on this. Okay I guess so let’s see Chuck Wendig: Shoots guns? Has a monster named after him in a video game? Knows what irony is? Takes no prisoners? Can implement a metaphor at twenty paces? Double check. Is not afraid to say ‘vagina’? This list is getting endless, man. You’re need to stop being so awesome or you and I are going to have words. // I find metaphors to be either hit or miss. I read one book by a very successful author, and loved the story, but the overuse of metaphors ensured I’d probably never read anything else he wrote. In contrast another author used them even more, and I never noticed them until I started looking. I’m a fan of Old Time Radio, particularly the hard boiled detective shows. They all use metaphors, and some some do it very well. There was one show that used them in a way that so off the wall, I have no clue what they were trying to say. Finally, here’s a short video of a brilliantly executed song using very poor simile and metaphor choices. Definite Defiant // That’s what I did. I used metaphors, parables, jokes, stories, fiction, nonfiction, used photos, music, poetry, my previous written drawing of artwork, memories, lies and people went INSANE! And I did it because I was bored. I was thinking about dumping a professional career as an RN due to yet again workplace abuse. Which led to workplace violence. And these people were very violent people. Lower life forms of primitive primate. These people would attack children. What were these people thinking that did not stop these people from attacking me? Anyway, I have these books that I have written. And I don’t want to share my work any further. Yet, when I spoke to a publisher they wanted my entire book. And I felt that I needed to protect my interest and did not share it. I agree with Bill, I do mix heart and head, emotion and contempt. My writing apparently angers people. And that was bizarre to me. I have every right not to agree with someone. I have a more informed opinion than they even do. Can I be morphed off this planet? I am definitely not of this planet! I am way too defiant. I have my own intellectual mind and do not agree with many people. I am an individual that has the brilliance that they lack. Therefore, are you people with a creative writing mind all attacked? All due to peoples lack of comprehension? // I believe the proper use of loose metaphors is appropriate if introduced correctly. But i use analogy for this mostly in my scientific writing. For example, in my studies, i find parallels between waves bashing up against an island and the study of black holes, or the “similarity” between earthquakes, and the brain and the battle over ideas that this world has killed itself over. Tectonic plates are at some point in equilibrium, and then something happens, and up and down, left and right we go, until it settles itself to quiescence. Must keep an open mind. Lori Parker // Sure would like to know what the hell a forced metaphor is. And is it bad? And how is it done? And am I doing it when I say that genetically modified corn that has been genetically modified to produce its own pesticide on a cellular level from getting bacteria DNA inserted into its DNA is akin to giving corn a brain?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2018
Categories |