Comparison:
Reentry [from prison] is not [an easy path]. It is a rocky, winding, switchbacked trail, overgrown in some places, terrifyingly steep in others. Sometimes the trail disappears. Other times it is so crowded with fellow travelers that it is impossible to go forward.
Writer Lauren Kessler revamps a shopworn, stealth metaphor: a path to freedom. By reworking the metaphor, and denying its pleasant, original connotations, she allows readers to recognize a messy, challenging, daunting route back to society after serving a prison sentence. Read all of the context material below to see how far Kessler is willing to go to rehabilitate a weary metaphor. If you'd like to consider even more such rehab projects, see Chapter 5 (Refurbished Non-Literal Comparisons) in Metaphors and Beyond: The Guide.
Context:
Reentry [from prison] has a clear goal—to reintegrate offenders back into their communities. But the path to achieving that goal is anything but clear. In fact, ‘path’ is not the right metaphor. That image is of a peaceful, pastoral lane, manicured, cultivated—a garden path a bridle path. Reentry is not that. It is a rocky, winding, switchbacked trail, overgrown in some places, terrifyingly steep in others. Sometimes the trail disappears. Other times it is so crowded with fellow travelers that it is impossible to go forward. Occasionally the trail crosses with another, and that other one looks better, easier, but (discovered too late) is neither. Sometimes the trail winds back on itself, and the journey has to begin again. There might be a map of the trail, and it might be available, or not. It might be accurate or not. Those holding the map might not have map-reading skills.
. . .
The barriers to achievement of these goals [various aspects of successful reentry into society] are so formidable that they are almost impossible to overcome, not rocks to stumble over or kick aside but boulders that stop all progress.
Citation:
Kessler, Lauren. Free: Two Years, Six Lives, and the Long Journey Home. Sourcebooks, 2022, pp. 20-21.
Comments