"Her laughter is like a waterfall of gold coins".
This was in a radio adaptation of Sarah Dunant's Blood and Beauty a couple of days ago. What first struck me is that it's a simile where the comparative is itself a metaphor, a weird combination (or is it that unusual?) that I think should be called a simetaphor. A waterfall of gold coins doesn't exist. In fact, a waterfall of anything apart from water doesn't exist, otherwise it would be a something-else-fall. So why a waterfall of gold coins? And why gold coins? Do they sound any different from other coins?
Anyone who's got lucky on a seaside arcade "penny falls" machine** will know what a fall of coins sounds like. If it sounds like any laugh, it's the laughter amused demons in hell might make in order to further torment the unfortunate inhabitants. And gold coins would not, most likely, sound any different. So why would an author want to compare someone's laughter to a horrid rushing tinkling and jangling sound?
This, I think, is where the waterfall and the gold comes in. People like waterfalls; they're pretty. People like gold for the same reason, and because it makes you rich, and the same applies to coins (well, gold ones at least). Compare the effect of: "Her laughter is like a load of tarnished farthings slithering off a cliff", which in reality would sound exactly the same.
I think the simetaphor *appears* to be suggesting the sound of the laughter, and that's how most readers would unquestioningly take it, but it *actually* relies on using associations to conjure only its feel, i.e. prettiness and desirability. But is this clever writing, or a shoddy simile? And does anyone but me care? Do I even care? That's the real question here.
** stop that smutty giggling.
This was in a radio adaptation of Sarah Dunant's Blood and Beauty a couple of days ago. What first struck me is that it's a simile where the comparative is itself a metaphor, a weird combination (or is it that unusual?) that I think should be called a simetaphor. A waterfall of gold coins doesn't exist. In fact, a waterfall of anything apart from water doesn't exist, otherwise it would be a something-else-fall. So why a waterfall of gold coins? And why gold coins? Do they sound any different from other coins?
Anyone who's got lucky on a seaside arcade "penny falls" machine** will know what a fall of coins sounds like. If it sounds like any laugh, it's the laughter amused demons in hell might make in order to further torment the unfortunate inhabitants. And gold coins would not, most likely, sound any different. So why would an author want to compare someone's laughter to a horrid rushing tinkling and jangling sound?
This, I think, is where the waterfall and the gold comes in. People like waterfalls; they're pretty. People like gold for the same reason, and because it makes you rich, and the same applies to coins (well, gold ones at least). Compare the effect of: "Her laughter is like a load of tarnished farthings slithering off a cliff", which in reality would sound exactly the same.
I think the simetaphor *appears* to be suggesting the sound of the laughter, and that's how most readers would unquestioningly take it, but it *actually* relies on using associations to conjure only its feel, i.e. prettiness and desirability. But is this clever writing, or a shoddy simile? And does anyone but me care? Do I even care? That's the real question here.
** stop that smutty giggling.