"He traveled all his life to grasp the light, and he did."

The light can be interpreted as something divine or something associated with the forces of good, but the phrase "grasp the light" could be considered impossible. A goal that is impossible. Can we go against our own writing and imply the light to not be something that can be grasped? How do we imply this?

The other question is can we contradict ourselves, and hide the fact it did not happen even if we literally write that it did happen, is there a way to do that?


Writers are not mathematicians or logicians. Mathematics and logic have very strict rules to convey narrowly defined concepts. On the other hand, writers strive to communicate ideas and emotions that are all over the the place. For writers, if the reader "gets it" then the communication succeeds. Thus, different purposes, different rules.

Literature is rift with examples of the writer violating the (then current) rules to take readers to new places. Search for "Shakespeare new words" to see all the words that The Bard invented. Writers (and speakers) continue to invent new words. The writing police are swept away by the needs of the world.

I can grasp a shovel. I can grasp the hand of a lover. I can grasp an idea. Entirely different actions in each case but similar notions. So it is not a great leap to grasp the light. I understand what is meant in each case.

Mission accomplished.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.