Walking down Seattle night streets, I came upon these trees adorned with Christmas lights. My aesthetic mind created an instant division: I loved the moving lights up in the branches and had next to no emotional reaction to the static lights on the tree trunks. What made the moving lights so much more appealing?
Could it be that each absence of light makes the presence of it more vibrant, more intense.
Could this same revelation be applied to my reading aesthetics?
Is this why I find books filled with figurative language page after page less appealing than books that only feature effective and well developed figurative language when absolutely necessary?
Like the static lights on the tree trunks, the too frequent presence of metaphors, similes, and analogies reduces my appreciation of an author’s artistry. I need the appropriate absence of figurative speeches to fully feel the impact of their presence.