Nathan Bransford - The Forums

According to my home skillet Merriam-Webster but paraphrased by yours truly...

ANTHROPOMORPHISM: Giving human characteristics, form, or feelings to non-human things.

PERSONIFICATION: Represented as a person or as having human qualities or powers.


1. Are these not basically the same thing? Or does anthropomorphism deal strictly with talking animals?
2. When is it poetic and when is it a no-no?

I really like using this type of figurative language in my writing; I think it adds imagery and color. Don't get me wrong, I don't have talking rabbits in my YA novel, but I don't see anything wrong with saying "the clouds scurried by" or "the tree sat fat and happy in the middle of the meadow."

At what point are we allowing "rules" to restrict creative voice and/or description?

For creative purposes, I consider anthropomorphism as coming from a polar opposite direction of personification toward a central purpose. The way I see it, anthropomorphism artlessly applies human traits to nonhuman beings and inanimate objects. Personification artfully embues nonhuman beings and inanimate objects with human traits.

An often remarked upon category error in the manner of anthropomorphism is where inanimate objects are depicted in animate behaviors:

A vase sat on the end table.

Of course, prescriptively, the vase cannot sit down. Descriptively, however, that kind of anthropomorphism doesn't too terribly flout conventional writing wisdoms and usages. In personification contexts, the vase very well could be believed as capable of sitting down.

The curmudgeonly boulder grumbled his displeasure.

A possible anthropomorphism there could be from assigning the boulder a male pronoun. While curmudgeonly and grumbled and displeasure could be construed as personifications. The boulder having a human personality and a capability for expression and reproduction stretches the limits of willing suspension of disbelief.

A method for determining and avoiding antropomorphism/personification category errors examines and evaluates a passage's discrete parts based upon coordinating or noncoordintating parts of speech and creative devices' functions and purposes.

A lot!! I've read so many rules about 'what not to do' and then I go pick up a best seller and see those exact same rules being broken. URGH!

Figurative language is good, I like it. But I'm always worried that someone will need to pick up a dictionary to see what I am talking about. Talk about something that would be jarring ;-) But descriptive writing is good, it gives the reader a world to fall into, something they can picture in their head. I've read to not go over-the-top (again-rules..tisk..tisk..) but I don't think it hurts in small doses. I, personally, want to be pulled into a world that the writer has developed.

And as for your anthropomorphism and personification. I googled it and learned that antropomorphism is a FORM of personifcation, normally used on Gods and animals in childrens books. It makes things that are unfamiliar seem familiar. Which make me think of all the crazy characters in Alice and Wonderland. And Disney in general.

To me, anthropomorphism and personification are one in the same.

~JD

I love you Poly and you're (clearly) super, super smart, but will you do my frail ego a kindness and dummy down your explanations? Try as I might, I only half know what you're saying, and I really want to understand. I do, I do. It's discouraging to hang around such brilliance. If you want to be friends, you're going to have to act stupid. :)

Hugs, E

Personification is descriptive. You describe what something looks like (a tree limb having "fingers" for example), or its nature ("the long arm of the law") by giving it a human characteristic.

An anthropomorphism goes beyond description and presents the inuman thing as human. So a talking dog, for example, would be an anthropomorphism.

I go to great lengths to express what I've learned as plainly as possible. Advanced topics resist plain speaking. Category errors is an advanced topic. Sharing what I learn helps me to speak more plainly, but apparently, not plainly enough yet to suit a broad audience.

I spent months unraveling the elusive characteristics of category errors. It wasn't easy, but studying and understanding them advanced my reading, writing, and editing skills. My ignorance of why any given written or spoken passage seemed awkward compelled me to learn why. They didn't settle well in my mind. Understanding category errors resolves many of my troubling aethetic hunches about my and others' writing.

Anthropomorphism and personification's meanings and usages have subtle and complex differences. Their denotations are more or less identical; their connotations in descriptive usages, as pertains to several disciplines including creative writing, are leagues apart.

If you want to be friends, you're going to have to act stupid.

A journalist friend of mine always uses big words and phrases that I don't understand. One day during a surf trip, I pulled over suddenly and told him I was going to leave him on the side of the road if he didn't stop making me feel stupid.

What is it called when you give humans inanimate object attributes?

I don't like to use the more precise rhetorical term catachresis in place of the more generic term category error. I am making an effort. How about meeting me a quarter of the way to my three-quarters, and them some, efforts to tone down my diction? After all, is not anthropomorphism a five-syllable word appropriate to college-level reading comprehension skills?

I don't believe diction obviates persons, but obviate is a term that comes close to the implied meaning of "give humans inanimate object attributes." Obviative person is a grammatical person that distances a person or thing in standing. There are a few obviation legacies of foundational languages retained in English. Calling a person an it is an obviation. The term "some people" used in negative evaluations is an example of obviative person. Some people just don't know how to behave in a fine restaurant. One used as an impersonal pronoun is obviative person. Calling a he a she or vice versa, and so on.

Ryan wrote:
What is it called when you give humans inanimate object attributes?

Objectification? Like if you objectify women by their bits and pieces? LOL

E McD wrote: If you want to be friends, you're going to have to act stupid. :)

Hugs, E

i think this is sheer briliance... i'm going to scurry over to the procrastination forum now. i have a new favorite quote!