CapriUni: Hmmm... I'm trying to put together the specific metaphors you've mentioned, and I'm getting a bit somewhat very confused. So far we've got song, love, sword, cave, lover and rose. Pulling some of your comments pertaining specifically to this song, I get:


A song is insubstantial. When it is past, it leaves no trace. But when it is good, it is the sharpest sword that can bring down the mighty.

Love seems as insubstantial as a song, as dreamlike as a melody, and as fleeting. But when it is good, it is a deep and strong mountain cave where we can take shelter, and sing.

My love is a song, you are the earthly singer from whom this ethereal song rises.

A song is like X, Love is like X, Love is a Song. Therefore Love is a Song and X.

What I'm talking about is layering different images together in a song -- things that don't ordinarily fit together (the way roses and dew do) -- a bit like the five blind wisemen describing an elephant: It's a rope, a tree, a fan, a snake, and a wall.

Now, for the verse on the hidden strength of love, I'm using the ol' cliche of the rose -- but I'm expanding it from the typical metaphor of the blossom, (which fades) and thorn (which wounds) to the strong roots underground, which survive the coldest winters, and sends forth new life year after year. I think the same metaphors show up in song after song because of limited space of lyrics -- there's not much room for introducing an image the listener hasn't heard before. When you equate roses with love, you don't have to worry about the audience not getting it. The problem is, roses are not a good metaphor for a song -- at least, the quality of songs that I want to highlight: something that seems to be a trifle at the surface, but in actuality is the strongest human beings can create -- that can change the world: topple a despot, or heal a broken heart.


Okay, but that quality of song is not insubstantial; it does leave more than a trace in the mind and heart of the listener, and stirs both to action. Likewise when love is substantial.

So if you're going to mention the insubstantial sort of song and the insubstantial sort of love, you still need a metaphor for those in order to draw the contrast with the metaphors of strength and substance you've mentioned (the sword, the cave and roots of a perennial plant). Some opposites of the above three might be: the tender reed ("The Rose"), the house of straw (the story of The Three Little Pigs) – or the house upon the sand (New Testament) – and a rootless plant (New Testament).

What about the lover? What's to be your metaphor for him? Will there be a contrasting metaphor for his opposite, the false or insubstantial lover? (Just rhetorical questions, trying to spark your thinking here!)

Finally, I'd like to make the comment that since roses and love have been "equated" for centuries – with meanings assigned to the colors, even! – they may be considered to be "things that ordinarily fit together", which you seem to want to avoid. Maybe the use of the rose in the song makes it too easy for the audience; IMO the thing about metaphor that makes it work is the surprise of it, the little jolt that makes the listener sit up and take notice.

But if you want to stay with the rose as metaphor for love, then perhaps the thing to do is to have those blind wisemen describe that rose (the insubstantial fragrance, the substantial roots, etc.) in a song. Then the lover could be the one who sees the whole thing as what it is. Again, just a thought to spark more thought!