Metaphor v Simile - A CRAZY mathematical approach

Intense conversations in my Stevens/More class, specifically in terms of metaphor v simile. Weirdly enough, drawing/thinking about it "mathematically" is interesting. With metaphor, you have a direct substitution--you are literally equating one thing as something else. When you say "you are the sun," you are literally saying that the "you" is a sun, not like a sun (this distinction is important and will become even more important a bit later). What stemmed interesting from this metaphor (before moving on) was a classmate's notion (Jeff) of metaphor being replacement--once you ascribe an existent object to a new object, that "old" object no longer exists. So, when you say "you are the sun," the "sun," as "we" know it ceases to exist--rather, only "you" exists as sun. Very interesting idea. Anyway, back to math: this is saying 3 = 3 or 3^2 = 9 -- there's only "one" right equation for each. Which may be too much a distillation, but represented on a number line, if you say a value equals a specific value, there is no "wiggle" room--if you say a point exists at (3,2) on an x-y coordinate plane, it is "fixed," in the same way a metaphor is a direct replacement--there, again, is no "wiggle" room--there is no approximation--there just is.

As far as simile, I originally diagrammed limits (as the conversation began a bit with how similes/metaphors are plays on "limits"), and the notion of approaching infinity (note: I think I am remembering my calculus correctly, for the most part [which is senior year high school--sorry, younger me, for not finishing off calc II freshman year of college and completing the trifecta of English, math, and computer science])--if there is no "real number" (or, to use earlier language, a "fixed" point), an expression can only approach a fixed number, never be a fixed number. Visually, again, this makes more sense, as you can plot the limit and shade the area underneath--the "further" you get on the limit, the "closer" it gets, but again, it never "stops." More simply, think of the common fraction 1/3 or 2/3--what do these equal? If you said "33%" or "66%"--WRONG (caps only for effect, not sarcastically). As with limits, this becomes more of a truncation--1/3 is actually .33333333333 to some indefinite spot, and the same with 2/3. You can safely approximate its meaning (no one, really, outside of a math context, is going to be like "OMG, don't equate 1/3 to 33%, geez!"), but saying 1/3 = .33 or 33% is "wrong" on a technicality. So, waht does this mean? A simile can only (to varying degrees) approximate a relationship. A simile offers more "options" or "possibilities" in terms of relationships--if you say "you are like the sun," you (as writer) still offer the reader flexibilities--you open different ways/qualities for this "you" to be sun-like. Is this "you" radiant, "yellow," "splotchy"? Well, you, as writer, can explain this or not in text, but the simile is not bound to a sort of fixed/definite meaning.

Summarizing, mathematically, it's "easy" to note the difference between metaphor and simile. With metaphor, it's more an all or nothing prospect or proposition--3 cannot "cease" being 3--saying something equals 3 imbues all of 3's "qualities" into that something (becomes prime, Fibonnaci, etc). Saying 3 = 4 is just...weird. And wrong. But mostly weird. Now, saying something like pi = 3.14 is "right" only in a sense of precision--I think pi is at least in the 200 in terms of post decimal digits, and each matters in terms of applications such as areas/volumes of circles/spherical objects. When you say pi = 3.14, you are asking the audience to "trust" this so far as there is known wiggle room--they have a solid footing as to what "this" means (knowing the numerical approximation/representation), but they are also aware that this number is unstable, and, as needed, it can be "changed" with little in terms of "loss."

Phew.

So, how does this affect my poetics, my masterplan, my rules? Well, while not a "rule" in existent in my "10 rules," I do note in my work that I make more use of metaphors than similes, and I think this is a direct result of the "precision" each offers. I like the ideas that, with metaphor, you are literally "transforming" something--"she" can become "light," not "like light." It's a more direct, confrontational (in a positive sense) approach. It seems less "hiding" behind words/play and more a statement of "truth" within the poem. Similes, to me, feel, at times, a bit like a cop-out--if you are going to compare something, why only approximate its relationship? Saying "she" is "like light" seems to already be questioning of itself and, if the comparison already begins unsteady, what's to say it will "hold" for the poem's duration?

-Glenn