Simile, Metaphor, Analogy: Difference...

Points out a conceptual similarity between two things. A simile equates two different THINGS.

  "His love for her IS LIKE the fires of Centralia" (simile)

A metaphor accepts the similarity of a simile, and discusses (uses) one of the things being compared as if it WERE the similar thing. Hence, if we start with a simile:

  "Your computer screen IS LIKE a desktop"  (a simile)

We can then produce a desktop metaphor in which the computer screen is treated—in the language—as if it ACTUALLY WERE the similar thing (the desktop). Hence we can:

• Write about putting documents on our "desktop" (using "desktop" as a metaphor of our simile)
• Write about putting a clock on our "desktop"
• Write about putting a calender, Rolodex, and pictures of the kids on our "desktop"

A computer screen is not a desktop. Using the simile (it is LIKE a desktop) as a metaphor is simply the allowance for use of the simile in our language, as if the similar thing actually IS the thing it is similar to. The key word there is "use". In other words, when we speak/write about our computer screen as a desktop, we are using a desktop metaphor for our screen. We can then apply the same metaphor to other metaphorical "objects" which can be "placed on" our "desktop", such as documents, clocks, calenders, etc.

In this case we use metaphor when we speak/write about the computer-screen as if it actually IS a desktop. In one sense, the word "metaphor" is more akin to terms like: passive-, and active-voice, because it describes HOW we speak about the content, rather than the content itself. In metaphor, the language speaks of the SIMILAR thing, as if it is the ACTUAL thing. When the language does this, it is called metaphor, or it is said that we are speaking "in" metaphor. The thing which we speak about in this pretend (metaphorical) fashion is also called "a" metaphor.

Is simply expanding on a simile enough to make it a metaphor? Only if we speak/write of the similar thing as if it actually IS the other thing. [footnote]





An analogy is NOT simply an expansion of a metaphor or simile. We will see later that it may actually be the more elemental concept.

An analogy doesn't compare, or use, two different THINGS the way a simile or metaphor does (respectively). Instead, an analogy compares two RELATIONSHIPS. To be absolutely clear about this, an ANALOGY has two THINGS on EACH of the two sides of its comparison, for a total of four THINGS (simplifying a bit for clarity).

The important thing to remember, is that it is the two RELATIONSHIPS between each set of things that are the subject of the comparison. Examples will be clearer than my feeble attempts at explanation:

 Dogs  ARE TO  Puppies        -AS-         Cats ARE TO Kittens
          |                    |                   |
          |                    |                   |
     RELATIONSHIP       equation between      RELATIONSHIP
between dogs & puppies    RELATIONSHIPS   between cats & kittens

Here's another one (tongue in cheek, not necessarily a valid analogy):

         Writers' blogs                     Alanis Morissette 
             ARE TO               -AS-           IS TO
       The word "analogy"                   The word "ironic"?

Note how all that is being compared in this analogy are the two RELATIONSHIPS between each set of two things. The THINGS themselves, are NOT being compared.

Finally, perhaps because I'm a fan of self-referential references:

Analogy IS NOT RELATED TO metaphor
-THE WAY-
metaphor IS RELATED TO simile.

This shows that an analogy can be a negative comparison (?), and that the relationship on one side of an analogy can be negative while the other positive. This has sometimes been taken to a comical extreme.





All similes (and their metaphors) have, at their heart, some implied or tacit relationship to a common THING. The two relationships between the unseen common thing, and the expressed things on each side of the simile holds the two sides together in the mind of the person perceiving it. This is almost a Schrödinger's Cat styled implication, since the unstated extra THING exists ONLY within the mind of the person who is perceiving the simile.

This is a good place for an example. Returning to our very first example-simile, presented above:

  "His love for her IS LIKE the fires of Centralia" (a simile)

The simile implicitly includes some unstated common THING on each side of an unseen, underlying analogy equation. We might get more specific, and say:

  "His love for her burns LIKE the fires of Centralia"(a simile?)

Syntactically speaking, this is still a simile, but it also explicitly provides the common THING, to which both THINGS should have a RELATIONSHIP. That is, this simile exposes the RELATIONSHIPS to be compared in the underlying (implicit) analogy.

"His love for her -IS TO- burning
-AS-
the fires of Centralia -ARE TO- burning"

Here, the common THING that each side of the simile is RELATED to is "burning". This clarifies that:

• THE RELATIONSHIP between "his love for her" and "burning",
• is being equated with THE RELATIONSHIP between "the fires of Centralia" and "burning".

If no common thing is provided in the simile, the analogy would only exist in our imagination. That's ok though. The point is, there will still be an analogy even if it is a different one depending on who is perceiving it.

We can not fully KNOW what relationship someone else is using to perceive a similarity between the two things on either side of a simile. It strikes me that this fact could be used to great advantage by a creative writer or poet. The fact that the underlying relationships to a common THING could be different for each person perceiving the simile might also prove very helpful for inferring observational data about what philosophers refer to as "first person knowledge" or "first person information".

Just to summarize, the relationship within a simile: (a.) may be implicit, and may be different for each person who perceives the simile, and (b.) is a relationship between the explicit things on each side of the simile, and one common, implied THING.





Just to clarify the point, that a simile's underlying analogy is based on perceptions that are subjective and uncertain, let's try to sneak a different one in there.

"His love for her is deep, like the fires of Centralia"


Here's the underlying (though explicitly alluded to ) analogy:


His love for her IS deep (i.e., "IS TO depth")
-AS-                       
The fires of Centralia ARE deep (i.e., "ARE TO depth")


If you're like most, you would have originally thought "burning" was the common thing that related each side of the original simile (that's what fires do right?). I just changed it to "depth" here, in order to make the point, that the underlying analogy, which any given individual might be using to make the two halves of a simile "similar", can often be different from one person to the next. You might also perceive the common thing to be something other than burning, or depth, for example:


"His love for her is unceasing, like the fires of Centralia"


Unless I'm still a really bad writer, you should be able to convert this to its associated analogy at this point.

Finally, it should be mentioned that analogies are more elemental than similes (or metaphors based on similes). A simile can always be converted to an analogy, but an analogy can't always be converted to a simile. Specifically, an analogy must have a common THING that is included in both relationships being compared (on both sides of the relationship-comparison). If an analogy doesn't include a common thing in both of its relationships, a mixed metaphor is produced.





Sometimes the concepts that hold an analogy together are not consciously considered by the observer, even though they are clear and unambiguous. Most would understand the following analogy fully, without ever explicitly enunciating or thinking about the concepts that connect the two relationships.

   "Play it again Sam"            "The whole damn fish"
        IS TO             -AS-           IS TO
 The movie "Casablanca"             The movie "Jaws"

The general consensus among the web sources (actually source) that define(s) the relationship between analogy and simile unambiguously, is that this relationship is a basic one. That is to say, all similes are based on some underlying analogy. At first, I wasn't completely convinced of this, but have come around.

• Analogies
  Ah. Finally! A nice clean, unambiguous definition of the word analogy from the good people at the University of Arkansas

• youtube: Every Metaphor and Simile has an Analogy Inside
  An unusually precise explanation of analogy's relationship to simile (for programmers like me).

• Copyblogger
  A very nice explanation and examination of simile and metaphor.

• Metaphor, Simile or Analogy?
  includes, what I hope is, a tongue-in-cheek definition of analogy from somebody who wisely chooses to remain anonymous.

• Related lesson: Analogies and Idioms
  Is it just me or did that last one (gas) have absolutely nothing to do with the story?

• Background on Centralia
  Ok, so, most people may not know what Centralia is. The explanation at offroaders.com seems to have the most information about it, which seems to be both reliable and accurate.

-djr








===========================
[FOOTNOTE:]

*** Of course, some folk on the Internet believe that this is reification, and that reification is a logical fallacy. Such people (imo) are like beings with wicker bodies (simile, plus non-sequitur), who have convinced themselves that they have the power to quench the fires of ignorance by leaping on them (metaphor, plus irony).

C Copyright 2010 D. J. Repici, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED