Using Metaphor

I find myself in a situation where there’s peer pressure on me to consume alcohol. It so happens that I’m having a cup of tea with someone who’s loyal to me who’s aware of my situation. I’m engrossed in the conversation, then inconspicuously I’m asked the question,

“Bonawadha?” 

I’m able to catch this as a Grice’s flout [1], a curveball as some call it. Because when I consider the preceding conversation (in content and intonation), this sentence brakes the maxim of relevance. So I translate it to mean, 

“So are you going to consume alcohol?”

I consider what's available to me to respond in the same manner, and noticing my tea has gone cold I say,

“Dhang nimila, ee nisa bonne na” which given the context can be translated to, 

“I’m of low affect, so I can’t be made to drink” and also implies I did drink when I was hot tempered and young.

This anecdote is an instance of an acted out allegory. Allusion and symbolism are two other popular literary devices.The main benefit of using such metaphorical language is, given all parties involved in the conversation understand the medium (metaphor), communication can be made discreetly with repudiation.

As metaphor gives the user the power to deny what was communicated, it should be used responsibly. Not accepting a person’s ability to use metaphor is a great injustice. In my next book (a retelling of the Narcissus and Echo myth) I hope to touch on this topic, specifically how when it is misused (by society) tragedy may follow. 

Dumidu Handakumbura © 2026.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

The Taylor Swift Defence

I have genuinely enjoyed Taylor’s music in the past. Her music doesn’t require psychoanalysis (which is not a bad thing, but sometimes you just can’t make the effort). Another reason I like her is because of the access we got into her life. As an outsider growing up, I could identify with the treatment she received from the public that held her up to standards mere mortals can't live up to, and it was interesting to see how she navigated through it to be as real as she could be while the world followed her every move.   

Now to the subject matter of this post. I’m not claiming to be an expert on feminism, but I like to think I know more about it than the layperson. Partly because I did some research on the topic as I authored the pro-feminist novella “Sympathy for Frankenstein’s Monster” last year. 

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests”. Most laypeople who identify themselves as feminists are against stratification and injustice based on sex, but they exclude straight men from their definition. True, the patriarchy may be a men’s club, but it excludes the men who are outsiders (especially those who are from the working class). Who’s fighting for the rights of these men? In my humble opinion women who know this fact (and understand the mysteries of sexual attraction), but still claim membership of feminism are abusing it and are a burden to it. 

As people who are born and raised in Colombo, we know how some of our elites play Cupid to wealthy women from the west. Usually it’s the semi-reformed beach boy who ends up falling prey to their Metis tongue. Could it be because it’s easier to get public support needed to reel in such men because of their ignorance and their degenerate image? What would happen if such an individual got away and learnt how the world works? Who would the elites bring to the altar of sacrifice? 

I like to coin the phrase “Taylor Swift Defence” to refer to how some of these pseudo-feminists throw another woman who has a worse public reputation than themselves (or a woman who is pushed by a community for ideological reasons) under the bus when such a man comes knocking. They do this to protect themselves, and continue to show support to the social order (thereby ensuring future benefits for themselves). In my novella I touched on this point of how such a double bind can affect the distribution of wealth and opportunity for working class men in certain rare circumstances. The repercussions of such myopic actions by such women (and men they have power over) are immoral and can lead to reproductive injustice. What chance does the poor man who is supposedly crazy about the woman who has the most immoral public image in town have of securing his progeny and dignity?

Dumidu Handakumbura © 2026.