What I thought it was was that wit was the use of intelligence to produce the conceit, & conceit is the result. However this booklet I have goes "It is mainly a matter of nuance. ‘Wit’ and ‘conceit’ were both aspects of a mental set, shared by writers and readers who looked for analogies and connections between things." So now I'm like whaaaaaaat?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
What is the difference between metaphysical conceit and metaphysical wit? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 2KL4SKL
- Start date
sazlik
Flailing Nerd
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
I'm having a bit of trouble making this distinction as well; my current understanding (which is quite possibly far from correct!) is that a conceit is a kind of 'strained' or 'far-fetched' drawn-out metaphor, whereas wit is more general--unexpected leaps of intellect. So, according to my understanding, conceits, paradoxes, and so on would all fall under the heading of 'wit'?
I keep meaning to ask my teacher about this--I think he's explained it before, but yeah, it seems to be a pretty fine line between the two.
Anybody have a better understanding than I do, and care to correct me?
I keep meaning to ask my teacher about this--I think he's explained it before, but yeah, it seems to be a pretty fine line between the two.
Anybody have a better understanding than I do, and care to correct me?