Author: James Geary

The indefatigable aphoristic archeologist Dave Lull alerts me to selected aphorisms by David P. Gontar, adjunct professor of English and philosophy at Inner Mongolia University in China and author of Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays. If you want to read more, Gontar’s aphorisms appear in the January 2013 issue of the New English Review. A selection:

Democracy is a brawl settled in advance by counting heads.

The rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven because he is already there.

A mystery is a topic about which the more is learned the less is understood.

The seekers of Truth find only each other.

To see things as they are is to see them as they might be.

A little toxin is the best tonic.

Success is not the avoidance of error but the making of the right mistakes.

In the long run there is no long run.

Fascinating piece in the NY Times, ‘In Gun Debate, Even Language Can Be Loaded‘, on the ubiquity of gun metaphors in daily language: “No wonder it is hard to get rid of gun violence when Washington cannot even get rid of gun vocabulary. The vernacular of guns suffuses the political and media conversation in ways that politicians and journalists are often not even conscious of, underscoring the historical power of guns in the American experience. Candidates “target” their opponents, lawmakers “stick to their guns,” advocacy groups “take aim” at hostile legislation and reporters write about a White House “under fire.”

Back in January of 2011, after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, I took part in a Takeaway discussion on the influence of metaphor in political rhetoric and imagery.

And, of course, Sartre said: “Words are loaded pistols.”

Tom Jacobs of Pacific Standard has uncovered another nifty study of the unconscious influence of basic metaphors of morality, this one having to do with judgments of good and bad, right and wrong: “When faced with an ethical issue, do you tend to come down strongly in one direction or the other? Or do you opt for a more nuanced response? Newly published research suggests the answer may depend, in part, on whether you have been exposed to a metaphorically resonant visual cue. Specifically, it finds greater polarization of opinion among people who have peripherally gazed at a black-and-white pattern.” Read the full article here.

This entertaining infographic from The Guardian is worth poring over at length…

This time a podcast from Mike Vuolo at Slate‘s Lexicon Valley, ‘Good Is Up‘, which explores how Lakoff and Johnson’s theories illuminate the persistence of this strange economic metaphor, with contributions from yours truly. Be prepared for a thrilling rush of linguistic vertigo!

James Guida, whom I blogged about in 2010, has written an interesting piece on The Page-Turner section of the The New Yorker website about the strangeness of being a writer of aphorisms. Guida describes the aphorist as “a dweller in the obscure hinterland between poetry and prose” (“The word ‘aphorist’ alone sounds suspiciously like an insult or type of criminal,” he writes) and goes on to engagingly chronicle the various joys and mild indignities of the vocation. He kindly mentions this website, adding that it’s “curiously popularizing, given the tradition,” a characterization with which I must take issue—not with the description of my site as “popularizing” (I would be delighted if it was!) but with the implication that the aphorism itself is an elite, non-popular or otherwise highfalutin form.

There is a widespread and woefully mistaken opinion that the aphorism is some kind of rare, inaccessible and aristocratic art form (the literary equivalent of opera, perhaps) practiced only by independently wealthy misanthropes, twisted cynics and amoral courtiers. I blame La Rochefoucauld, who was all of these—as well as being one of the greatest aphorists who ever lived. La Rochefoucauld has become the archetype of the aphorist, but he is not really representative of the profession at all. In fact, historically, only a tiny fraction of aphorists have been aristocrats, and the aphorism itself is the oldest and most democratic literary art form on the planet. The American aphoristic tradition in particular is keenly anti-aristocratic and anti-hierarchical; see everything by Twain, Franklin, Billings, Bierce and even Emily Dickinson. Indeed, aphorisms began long before literacy was common, as the world’s heritage of proverbs proves, so the form was ‘popular’ (i.e., accessible to and used by lots of people) from the very start. Though few people immediately recognize the term, aphorisms are in daily use by each and every one of us every single day. Some may be more ‘literary’ than others, but they are all aphorisms just the same.

If you’re interested in pursuing this line of argument further, I addressed this widespread and woefully mistaken opinion about aphorisms in this blog post from August. You can also watch this clip from the first (and so far only) meeting of the World Aphorism Organization (WAO, pronounced WOW!) back in 2008 in which A.C. Grayling, John Lloyd and myself debate whether the aphorism is an elitist craft or fit for the masses. (Thanks once again to that perspicacious spotter of the proverbial Dave Lull, who alerted me to James Guida’s piece.)

This one is from The Economist: “One month remains in the battle over impending sequestration and tax increases on Capitol Hill, and no one can settle on the right metaphor to capture just what will happen on January 1st if no deal is reached.” The best metaphor for what’s going on in Washington right now, The Economist writes, is a game of political ‘chicken’.  More chicken metaphors can be found here.

The BBC website has a great meditation of the meaning of the ‘fiscal cliff’ metaphor: “The phrase “fiscal cliff” is now part of the American lexicon, describing the looming deadline when tax cuts expire and spending cuts kick in. But where did the term come from and is the image a helpful one?” For those overcome by vertigo when they hear the phrase, some useful alternatives include … fiscal slope, fiscal hill, fiscal diet, fiscal fast and, my personal favorite, fiscal curb.

I’ve blogged about Richard Krause’s aphorisms twice before, first here and then here. His collection of epigrams Optical Biases is recently out from EyeCorner Press. Here’s what professor of American studies Camelia Elias has to say about Krause’s work: “Optical Biases makes us redesign our way of asking questions. [Krause’s] epigrams invite us to reconsider the significance of knowing the difference between what we want and what we need, what we ask for and what we get, and what we are and what we think. Optical Biases dislodges our perspectives and we catch our eyes gesturing at life’s movements and rhythmical patterns. We wink at our thoughts that celebrate us.” And here’s an epigram to get you started…

When you get old enough youth is beauty.