South Africa and Metaphor

Creative Writing Portfolio

Over this course, I have learned a fair bit about analysis. I have looked at poetry, in my metaphor analysis, a visual analysis of the South African flag, and I conducted a discourse analysis of Emerson's "Self-Reliance." These steps taught me three key things. First, they taught me to look at things from different perspectives. Second, they taught me to examine the underlying arguments found in all works of art. Third, the process of writing the responses to those assignments helped me to learn more about constructing arguments.

On the first point, each assignment represented a completely different way of examining something. They were more or less straightforward -- a visual item for the visual analysis, metaphor for the poetry analysis, discourse for the Emerson- but when these three are synthesized valuable lessons about perspective emerge. For example, the flag exercise was ostensibly visual analysis, but it drew upon knowledge of both history and the contemporary reality of South Africa. That is how one understands the visual -- while the flag is certainly striking on its own, without context it is not as effective a visual.

Poetry is the same, where context matters a lot. But poetry also creates visuals that often need to be subject to interpretation the same way that an actual visual will. When a writer creates a scene there are often many elements that contain metaphorical qualities, and there are often elements of context that matter. This is why studying three different ways is helpful. Learning different ways to analyze a work of art or writing is valuable in teaching me the elements that go into constructing a great work. I see that there needs to be a context from which symbols derive meaning. Then symbols are used as a way to convey certain things in a manner that may not be overt. When you read a mainstream commercial novel, for example, there is often a minimum of symbolism -- more likely just surface level descriptions and little depth. So understanding how discourse, metaphor and visual construction all comprise a deeper, more meaningful and lasting work of writing is an important takeaway from this course.

The second thing I learned was to understand the underlying principles and concepts of each. The flag paper was important for this because it was so overt in the design to appeal to the need for racial harmony and the creation of the rainbow nation, as a means of bringing about peace in the land. But the other works had similar underlying themes. These are not always expressed directly, but the reader instead has to examine context and metaphor as clues to determine what the underlying message is.

The third thing is that the act of writing these papers helped me to construct arguments. Each paper asked me to use a specific skill set to break down the work. While deconstructing the work I was constructing my arguments. There were moments in these papers when clearly my efforts were less than stellar -- the arguments were not necessarily that tight. But working through the arguments is a matter of practice. First, I realize that these types of analyses work best when you take the time to understand what you are going to say first, rather than starting to write and then learning as I go. But it is also important to look at how thoughts can come together as a you write -- halfway through a paper you can start to see things coming together, and realize what the conclusion should be. Sometimes this is different from where you thought you were going.

I feel that my ability to understand written works has improved, but so has my ability to express an argument. With more practice, I do not doubt that I will start to be much better at putting these long papers together, but also of seeing the metaphors and visual cues that comprise a lot of complex writing.

There were a few small changes to the papers in the portfolio. For the most part, I was happy with the structure of my arguments. The typos that were highlighted were by and large repaired. I looked for fragments in the poetry paper, but did not find any. We must have different definitions of the word "fragment." I think the issue is not fragments per se, but rather some sloppy construction of ideas. I take that as meaning that I need to learn to convey my ideas more clearly. For example, instead of just writing down the thought and hoping that it speaks for itself, I should engage in a more comprehensive editing of my own work, to ensure that the way I have expressed my argument is simple. I see that there are points where I was not being especially clear, and that is probably where the confusion comes in.

Some elements of argument construction that I dislike in my work here relate to sentence construction. For example, run-on sentences were pointed out, and there are certainly some of those. But just as bad are the points where the ideas repeat, and even run in circles. Those moments are certainly learning moments for me -- better writing mechanics would result in greater argumentative clarity. I removed an entire paragraph in the flag paper about mining, as this paragraph added nothing to the argument. I can be prone to such asides, and aim to cut them out of my writing.

I changed the word "advert" a couple of times before realizing that this was unfair -- it may not be common in all forms of English, but it certainly is in a lot of English-speaking countries, and therefore is fair game.

So there are some changes that were made, but as a student I am more interested in learning than in chewing over old work, and the process of learning really is more about reflecting on big picture things than worrying about citation style or small mechanical errors. (I fixed the citations, which were quite poor, admittedly). So I placed my focus on understanding the errors to which I am most prone, in particular the habit of starting to write before gathering my thoughts thoroughly. This is where the run-on sentences come from, and it is also where I struggle to effectively clarify my ideas.

It is probably also worth pointing out that truly clear writing is concise -- writing to a page county is a recipe for rambling if one fails to realize that blank spaces equate to the need for more analysis. That is something I think I needed to learn -- if I feel like I need to fill space what that really means is that I need another good idea. Sometimes you have to learn these things the hard way.

To me, the peer feedback was quite useful, because of the way it spurred me to think about the faults in my writing. I don't take criticism at face value, but rather I feel it is more valuable to look to the underlying issues. So if someone says they don't understand because of fragments, and I don't see fragments, I realize that the fragments are not literally fragments but fragmented, incomplete ideas on which I am trying to construct an argument. So I must strengthen my ideas in order to strengthen my writing.

For me to give feedback also shows me the approaches that other people take. Learning how a peer conceptualizes something is valuable; it helps me to understand the things that I do well and the things that I do not. Thus, this exercise was quite valuable, because it showed me the perspective of a fellow learner, someone who makes mistakes -- ones I've learned to spot, and ones I had to learn to spot. There may even be things that I missed because I haven't learned them yet.

All told, I feel that I started learning more when I started focusing on the high level analysis. The three approaches helped me to do that, to start to see the commonalities between the three approaches, and the differences. Further, by taking that step back I was able to learn how to improve my writing a lot in the future, by understanding key conceptual mistakes, and the structural and mechanical errors that I commonly repeat. Making a mistake once is just something that happens, and the easiest way to improve quickly is to remove the repeat errors.

Antjie Krog's Country of Grief and Grace

Abstract

African literature, especially poems, are the least analyzed, discussed or celebrated irrespective of the fact that it dates back as far as the ancient Egyptian and biblical times. This paper is a Metaphor analysis of the poem: County of Grief and Grace by Antjie Krog. Antjie Krog is a white female South African poet, who writes mainly in Afrikaans. Much of Krog's writing, in particular, comes from the place of deep oppression that was apartheid. Krog used poetry as a means of writing during apartheid-era South Africa, a time during when you could not openly say what you wanted to say (under threat of incarceration, banning). Nevertheless, she had found a way to say it without saying it.

The author is deliberately generous with her rhetoric and metaphors to convey her (and others') painful experiences as a South African growing up during apartheid. The author struggles with the fact that she is privileged in a world which is so cruel and she wants her reader to understand everything and all about South African literature and culture. This metaphor analysis will assist in the reader's journey of gaining intellectual satisfaction from reading and understanding text and culture from a different country, and expand their thoughts and hopefully correcting any insularity of the reader's experiences.

Antjie Krog's Country of Grief and Grace

Antjie Krog (2000) uses metaphor and extended metaphor throughout the poem "Country of Grief and Grace" -- itself an exploration of existential crisis in South Africa, ravaged by apartheid and violence. Krog descends into this maelstrom to provide the reader a glimpse, hope, a ray of light that beams through the sludge of hopelessness, despair, and grief. Through her use of metaphor and extended metaphor, Krog constructs an alternate way of looking at the world in which she lives. A framework that invites the reader to question the borders and boundaries of time and space which keep separate the past and the future, the young and the old, the black and the white. By merging or synthesizing the elements of her country into a cohesive whole, Krog shows that all is one -- and in this revelation is the seed of peace, the germ of life. Moreover, by constructing metaphors out of verbiage within the poem, Krog speaks metaphorically of the war waged in her homeland as a type of battle between two entities, entwined like lovers fighting to separate even as they cling to one another.

The first vague reference to the subject of the poem -- "it" -- which is cited twice in the opening stanza -- is something negative that keeps the two characters apart. It is "between" them, but is unnamed. The pronoun is used almost mythically in the same manner as the great cosmic force that the Hebrews recognized as God but dared not name (thus they referred to the force as I AM WHO AM) (McCarthy, 1978). Instead of the power that exists between the two characters in the poem recognized as a positive entity, it is characterized as painful and fraught: "how desperately it aches between you and me." Then a wail of grievances follows thereupon with the narrator taking on the persona of the Psalmist, bemoaning the effects of "it" -- "destruction." The suffering that attends the pursuit of "truth," the scarcity of energy that remains behind, making "survival" a difficult task enough -- let alone the acknowledgment of any truth. Thus, in the opening stanzas, the poet makes plain that "it" is a conflict waged for higher ground -- a higher state -- a war that has brought combatants into its field and watched them fight one another for this higher claim while their vital resources and essences are depleted and drained. Another mythical reference is alluded to in the verb "slung" -- the sling of David, used against the giant adversary Goliath. But in the poem, the weapon is not a stone, but a "voice" -- angry words -- and the sounds exhaled out of one's lungs. The mouth gives it shape, as a metaphor for weapons -- fired out of the sling directly into the adversary, now recognized as the two's past.

The past of the two is described as a corpse -- "the solid cold length of our past" -- laid out flat on a slab at the morgue. The metaphorical device used by Krog gives the poem its essential motif now: the past -- the life that the two shared (the two are as of yet still unknown, undefined for the reader, but the sense is that they were once intimate) is now dead. The metaphor death sets up the hope, however, for rebirth, for resurrection, for hope springing out of the ashes, phoenix-like -- and the means of this renewal is the same channel as that which robbed the two of life -- the "voice." Krog yields up another plaintive cry: "how long does it take for a voice to reach another?" The metaphor is extended now -- but altered and taken in an unexpected direction. Offering up to the reading a variety of possible interpretations: a voice -- like a bullet fired from a rifle, or a stone hurled from a sling. The stone must travel through space and time to arrive at its destination; does it move quickly or slowly? -- does it stop, take detours? -- can it be caught and considered at a later point in time? Or is it like a vaccine, medical first aid, like that which arrives on the front lines of a battlefield when the din of war has been subdued? -- does the voice come like a salve, healing the wounded with words of warmth, light, hope and kindness? The poet does not say -- not yet -- (later she will embark upon a search for the Christian concept of forgiveness, as Vosloo (2012) notes); for now, she only asks how long it takes to come "in this country held bleeding between us." And at this point it becomes clear what the two are fighting over: they are fighting for their country. The metaphorical approach of the poet in describing their combat is now extended to include the metaphor of the homeland, torn apart and bleeding even as it remains in one piece between the two acting as a glue -- a fixative that also keeps them bound to one another.

The poem's second part of the poem introduces a new metaphor, which again uses the biblical verbiage to enrich its meaning: "in the beginning is seeing" -- a reference to the Word, which is described in John's Gospel. Fisher (1985) defines it as a "narrative paradigm" that is used to construct and thematically cohesive expression of ideas (p. 74). In Krog's poem, the paradigm is shifted from the warring relationship between the two entities in the first part to a mystical expression of the sin and grace that exists within the "wounds of anger" (Krog, 2000). The metaphor used herein is one in which the wounds suffered by the two parties and by the country are what contain the whole of the past as well as the seeds for hope. By entering into the wounds and looking with the eyes -- "seeing" as Krog puts it -- and listening with the ears to the "voices" that speak for the whole of the country from out the wounds -- reflection is possible, and out of reflection can come to a new peace. The concept of baptism by blood -- baptism into a community -- is used to intertwine the concepts already introduced in the poem in the first part. Words, violence, and unity: the voices of the country are literally "baptized in syllables of blood and belonging" -- a metaphorical way of saying that the violence and fighting are not outwardly directed but inwardly directed. The fighters are only killing themselves in their attempts to kill one another. The more they spill one another's blood, the more they are staking their eternities to one another. Krog alludes to "angel hair and barbs/dew and hay and hurt" -- symbols that reference the ethereal, spiritual realm and the earthly, physical realm. Thus, Krog's second part of the poem is an extended metaphor for the wounds of the country serving as a means of transcendence. A way for everyone to pause, reflect, and bring together the two natures of their humanity, the physical and their spiritual natures. To unite them in what is clearly another allusion to the religious allegory that underlines the poem -- that of redemption. Here suggested in the juxtaposition of symbols, "angel hair and barbs/dew and hay and hurt," all of which hint at the Incarnation (the Word that is, in the beginning, replaced by Krog with seeing). Krog is pointing to the wounds that her country has suffered and like a saint in a religious icon pointing the finger, not at the opponent but rather upward towards the divine. The "hay" is where the Word made Incarnate is laid -- the food of the animals made into a bed for the Lord (Sumner, 2013).

The third part of the poem begins with the narrator "speechless" as she waits for the words to come -- the metaphor of the Word (the Incarnate Son of God who brings redemption, healing and forgiveness -- which is explicitly desired at the end of the poem) is still not yet at hand. Instead, "hell" is still all around the narrator, living in a "soundless space" -- a metaphor for desolation, where no voices are heard, where no human souls are healed. Thus, the poet is prompted to grieve: "what the hell does one do / with this load of decrowned skeletons origins shame and ash." The poet has no recourse but to continue grieving as "we carry death" into the fourth part of the poem.

Death is personified as a lover -- a metaphor for the way in which the country's inhabitants have wedded themselves to an evil entity that "latches its mouth to our heart / it sucks groaningly" (Krog, 2000). Death is described as "a language without mercy," which is another allusion to the biblical myth of Logos -- the Word -- being the Incarnation of mercy. Christ, Who overcomes death through the resurrection, is the voice that Krog appears to be awaiting. While she is waiting -- while the whole country is waiting -- death arrives like a vulture or a host-parasite -- a false, passionate lover groaning at the mouths of its victims, fueling their hatred, their emotions of anger, which they project at one another. Death controls the land. Thus, this portion of the poem is given over to describing the way in which the country is saddled with spiritual sickness: the extended metaphor employed by Krog is one in which death is personified, dominating the landscape and speaking a loveless language in which mercy has no part. The vocabulary of death is "violence" -- and the actions of Death reek with a stench that is repellant. Death is also described as "repentless" -- another clear allusion to the voice of God, which calls sinners to repent. Death is a metaphor for anti-Christ at this point in the poem -- the antithesis of the healing salve of mercy and forgiveness which Krog's country is in desperate need of. Instead of finding this voice, it turns instead to unleashing its desperation in a flurry of violence that only makes the wounds deeper and more painful so that Death seems "indefatigable" and even "meticulous" in its cruel destruction of the people of the country.

Krog is not satisfied to leave the poem and seemingly her country in such desperate straits. She turns now to a more reflexive position -- to her heart, again echoing the Psalmist as he looks inward to find the truth and depth of his conviction and faith. "Deepest heart of my heart/heart that can only come from this soil" -- the soil which is black, black like the African people with whom the narrator now identifies. The reference to a black heart is similar to the Song of Solomon's reference to the love who is "black but beautiful" (Sasson, 1989, p. 407). The heart acts as a metaphor for a window -- a gateway -- into the soul of the country, a soul that yearns for understanding, for empathy, sympathy, and love. By moving into the heart of hearts, Krog looks inward and upward, transcends the violence and rage of the community, and sees that she is the same as the other with whom she is fighting. The two entities from the first part of the poem are not different from one another, even if they think they are. They are brothers and sisters, neighbors -- one -- members of the same land, the same home, the same community. Turned against one another they only effect the evil will of Death, which seeks to destroy. The metaphor that Krog now weaves into the poem is one that provides the narrator a moment of illumination, of clarity, of hope: "for one brief shimmering moment this country / this country is also truly mine / and my heart is on its feet." The narrator is emboldened and emblazoned by the meditation on the heart of hearts -- a possible metaphor for the Sacred Heart, which hovers over all with its healing balm and hand of mercy.

The poem progresses then to its sixth part and the narrator, now alive with light and hope, addresses the "you" who heals -- the spirit that calms -- the God that loves and brings aid -- the divine assistance. "Because of you / this country no longer lies / between us but within." The intimation of rebirth is beheld in the lines: "in the cradle of my skull / it sings it ignites / . . . I am changed forever I want to say/forgive me / forgive me / forgive me." The cradle-skull metaphor signifies that the poet's dead-state is now having a Lazarus moment -- and "out of the cradle endlessly rocking" moment (Whitman, 1900). The moment is one of self-realization: the narrator recognizes her fault in the fighting and warring and now pleads for forgiveness and unity: "you whom I have wronged, please / take me / with you." The metaphorical journey that the narrator has taken, by entering into the country's wounds, reflecting on the war, lifting her eyes upward, and praying for illumination, now moves towards its end.

The seventh part of the poem continues in this vein, extending the metaphor by asserting that "the price of this country of death / is the size of a heart." The heart becomes now both the gateway to grace and salvation and also the price that must be paid. The heart that gives life also must be sacrificed. The heart must be broken. The metaphor comes to life and beats within the poem like the same heart that so soon acknowledged and filled with grace now bows down to take its place, like the Man-God on Calvary -- dying so that the country might live. A sister is recognized in the closing lines of the section and the union of souls begins.

The poem's eighth section now takes that union and applies it to the generations -- the young merging with the old, the black merging with the white. "What does one do with the old / how do you become yourself among others / how do you become whole / . . . because all our words lie next to one another on the table now." The poet returns to the earlier metaphor of the past lying dead upon the table -- and now places the words of the generations and the races, of the men and women, the neighbors, brothers, sisters, foes and friends. All the words -- now lie beside the corpse of the past on the same table. The metaphorical journey is now complete. The poet's words illuminated by the Word now joins the dead past and revives it on the table in the morgue where it lies: "we are slowly each other / anew / new / and here it starts."

The final section of the poem -- the ninth section -- a number that conveys a metaphorical-mystical link to the medieval religious journey of Dante, traveling through the nine circles of Hell, up the nine levels of Mt. Purgatory, and through the nine layers of Heaven. The poet's nine sections reflect this same symbolic journey motif and conclude with a poetic aside that is stated in parentheses -- acknowledgment of the need for confession -- of the need for souls to admit their sins and receive grace and the life of the divine, which alone can heal the soul and the country. The poet reminds one and all that "if the old is not guilty / does not confess / then, of course, the new can also not be guilty / nor be held accountable / if it repeats the old." The reminder is direct: for things to get better, everyone must be willing to hold themselves accountable, to open their souls to the divine light.

In conclusion, Antjie Krog's (2000) "Country of Grief and Grace" uses metaphor to describe the situation in her homeland, how hatred, anger, racism, apartheid and violence have torn the people away from and against one another. Even though in reality they are all brothers and sisters of the same land and soil. The metaphors that Krog constructs and extends depict the country's past as a corpse. The individuals at war as victims of Death, who feeds on them like an inflamed, passionate, false lover. While the one, true divine source of peace, love, and mercy waits with its redeeming words to reignite the soul and give it the grace needed to heal the wounds of so many generations of violence.

Abstract

This study carries out the visual analysis of the South African flag. South Africa adopted a national flag in 1994 following the dissolution of the apartheid regime, and the flag consists of six colors. The blue-black color represents the determination of the black race while the blue color connotes the Indian and Atlantic Ocean. The blue color also represents loyalty, truth, perseverance vigilance, and justice. The red color in the flag reveals that the country was soaked with blood during the Apartheid. However, green color represents land, fertility, love, joy and hope from the land, and a yellow colors represents mineral wealth and richness in South Africa. All the colors have been specifically chosen to improve the level of unity in the country and provide a good image for the country.

Introduction

After the end of the apartheid, the Republic of South Africa changed their national flag on April 27, 1994, and the new flag composes of vertical Y shape with different colors. The new flag was adopted to replace the former flag that the country had been adopting since 1928. The design of the new national flag was chosen to represent the country new democracy since Apartheid had been erased from South Africa. The flag composes of the horizontal red situated at the top and horizontal blue at the bottom where the red and blue are of equal width. Moreover, the South Africa flag has a unique composition visualized in a vertical Y-shape with different color. The green band in the flag represents the horizontal "Y" shape that resembles an isosceles triangle, and the narrow yellow bands separate the arms of an isosceles triangle. Moreover, the triangle is separated by blue, red and narrow yellow bands and white stripes. The stripes of the fly of the flag are based on the ratio 5:1:3:1:5. However, all the colors of the flag symbolize different identities for South Africa. The objective of this study is to carry out the visual analysis of the South African flag.

Visual Analysis of South African Flag

A flag is defined as a means of identification. A national flag symbolizes a country identity, its embodiment, which the country stands for. Essentially, a flag speaks for people and inspires loyalty and devotion. Apart from using the flag as a means of identification, a flag is also used to reveal a country embodiment. Moreover, it is a symbol of ethos and hopes for people. A flag speaks for people of a particular country. The decision to design another South African national flag started few months after the release of Nelson Mandela. When South Africa was liberated from Apartheid in the 1990s, the South African stakeholders believed that the former flag resembles a Dutch flag that formed the colonies of South Africa. The country stakeholders designed a new flag delivered a new image for the country. The Y shape of the flag represents a convergence of South African people towards a unified path. Typically, when the flag is designed, South Africa's goal is to unify all South African ethnic groups in good faith. During the apartheid, there was a great division among the ethnic groups. Thus, the goal of the new flag is to move people towards unity as well as the move to create a new national identity. A national flag symbolizes a state emblem or coat of arms, which is the highest symbol in a country. The Coat of Arms is traditionally considered a high emblem in the state showing the impression that the Great Seal has been approved by the South African president. In essence, the South African flag is an important tool for a visual persuasion and visual argument. (Mirzoeff, 1999).

Blair (2004) discusses the importance of visual persuasion and visual argument. The power of using visual things as a means of persuasion is obvious. The authors define the visual argument as the strategy of using visual items as a medium of communication by which one party communicate to another party. Typically, visual things can be used "to shape people's attitudes, and beliefs and actions." (Blair, 2004, p 262). Essentially, a national flag is the way a country communicates to the world using a visual-verbal argument. Blair (2004) believes that the best example of visual argument is a political advertisement where a country advertises themselves on the television. However, when countries decide to advertise themselves, the national flag will be the most important symbol that the country will be used for the advertisement. For example, it is believed that South Africa is known as one of the best places for tourism. However, the country will need to place a visual advertisement revealing the importance of tourist centers. To convince the tourists about the peace and security of the country, the government will need to place the national flag at the strategic place of the advertisement, which serves as a visual element. (Hovanec, & David 1994). Essentially, the visual element has been identified as the most rhetorical dimension that assists in convincing other people to support the course of an argument.

"Persuasion cannot be just any manner of influencing a person. By manipulating neurons or implanting electronic circuits in a human brain, neurosurgeons could produce changes in the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of the person whose brain is modified in this way" ( Blair, 2004 p 263).