You know, I'd never really thought of metaphor in terms of the gap between signifier and signified in language, which was, you know, really stupid of me. Blame elementary English, because someone says metaphor and I say "Two unlike things compared to one another without using like or as" and never go past that in thought, though writing's a different story. Metaphor in my writing tends to turn up consciously in terms of motivation or the essential nature of characters, and unconsciously in physical description.
To digress, this reminds me of a discussion I once had with someone (god knows who) about the way our minds process things. I do not think visually; I even daydream in stories, in words; I friggin revise my daydreams sentence by sentence. When I think visually, it is a memory; if I imagine visuals, they are a mish-mash of memories formed into something new, but never freshly imagined. On the up side, I remember the things I see very clearly, and I immediately begin to translate them into words, so they transfer naturally to my writing. I start building stories around almost everything I see. I feel this real drive to take beautiful sights and make them into beautiful words and just sort of thrust them into people's brains so they will Get It because it's like people cannot see the beauty of things by looking at them; someone has to tell them about it. Which frustrates me endlessly.
To conclude my rambling, I'd just like to say that yes, you're completely right. There is a value placed on specificity and detail in writing (and writing workshops, and how-to books, and etc.) that is valid, but I think that you are correct in saying that what is really needed is originality, to make people sit up and take notice. Though I do think that noticing things in detail will tend to lead to originality. I also think that that is the greatest crime a writer can commit, not noticing things--I feel like it's like lying to the reader, saying "This is the way the world is" when you haven't taken time to see the world, you're just taking someone else's word that the sky is blue and not looking up to see that tonight, it's green.
here via metafandom
To digress, this reminds me of a discussion I once had with someone (god knows who) about the way our minds process things. I do not think visually; I even daydream in stories, in words; I friggin revise my daydreams sentence by sentence. When I think visually, it is a memory; if I imagine visuals, they are a mish-mash of memories formed into something new, but never freshly imagined. On the up side, I remember the things I see very clearly, and I immediately begin to translate them into words, so they transfer naturally to my writing. I start building stories around almost everything I see. I feel this real drive to take beautiful sights and make them into beautiful words and just sort of thrust them into people's brains so they will Get It because it's like people cannot see the beauty of things by looking at them; someone has to tell them about it. Which frustrates me endlessly.
To conclude my rambling, I'd just like to say that yes, you're completely right. There is a value placed on specificity and detail in writing (and writing workshops, and how-to books, and etc.) that is valid, but I think that you are correct in saying that what is really needed is originality, to make people sit up and take notice. Though I do think that noticing things in detail will tend to lead to originality. I also think that that is the greatest crime a writer can commit, not noticing things--I feel like it's like lying to the reader, saying "This is the way the world is" when you haven't taken time to see the world, you're just taking someone else's word that the sky is blue and not looking up to see that tonight, it's green.
My apologies for the length here.