Terrry Eageton loves simile, write it like dream, making everything accesible, discussable, arguable. What did Meades make of Zaha's inability to use simile? What do you make of it?
Meades on Zaha - "The awkward struggle to describe the products of her capacious imagination is hampered by her disinclination to employ simile, which, though it might clarify, would undermine her achievement."
Simile is not original but allows us to relate and understand something, Hadid is scared that her ideas might not be original enough if she uses simile, where as Meades is using simile as a tool to get us on his side
Sassaure reminded us in the 1900s that "Language is the breaking open of differences", something Eagleton enthusiastically talks about in his 'seminal' Literary Theory. The Simile is a primary way of doing this, describing something not as what it is, but what it's like in order to approximate the general character.
All Zaha wants to do my refusing to comment on her work is to leave it open to interpretation. Language naturally does this anyway though! As such, I think Zaha could learn from Eagleton's quite literal advocation of simile in 'Literary Theory', and the subsequent deployment of the poetic and open dimensions of diction in After Theory to write discourse that tries to be as open a work as possible: Fr'instance, I'm sure that I misinterpreted enough of After Theory, but the text was still directed enough that I got a lot out of reading it... even if it was completely the wrong end of the stick.
Meades on Zaha - "The awkward struggle to describe the products of her capacious imagination is hampered by her disinclination to employ simile, which, though it might clarify, would undermine her achievement."
ReplyDeleteSimile is not original but allows us to relate and understand something, Hadid is scared that her ideas might not be original enough if she uses simile, where as Meades is using simile as a tool to get us on his side
Sassaure reminded us in the 1900s that "Language is the breaking open of differences", something Eagleton enthusiastically talks about in his 'seminal' Literary Theory. The Simile is a primary way of doing this, describing something not as what it is, but what it's like in order to approximate the general character.
ReplyDeleteAll Zaha wants to do my refusing to comment on her work is to leave it open to interpretation. Language naturally does this anyway though! As such, I think Zaha could learn from Eagleton's quite literal advocation of simile in 'Literary Theory', and the subsequent deployment of the poetic and open dimensions of diction in After Theory to write discourse that tries to be as open a work as possible: Fr'instance, I'm sure that I misinterpreted enough of After Theory, but the text was still directed enough that I got a lot out of reading it... even if it was completely the wrong end of the stick.