I really liked this reading on how the Chicago Tribune used these various properties to create an effective advertising technique. The general gist of the panels was a flow from an initial state, some causative effect (usually reading a certain part of the Chicago Tribune), and finally reaching the resultant state.

The first concept talked about was metonymy, which is the use of something to represent a related concept. I think the clown nose and lipstick marks were really good examples for me because of the very clear connection between the object and what it was supposed to represent. However, the rest of the examples were a lot less clear to me. I had to look at them for a while to understand or read the description, which makes me think they would’ve been less effective, especially if they were meant to be quickly consumed (which I would expect if they were displayed on buses, etc.).

The author then talked about metaphors. I’ve actually always had trouble distinguishing metonymy and metaphors, and I think this is still something that trips me up. My understanding is that metaphors are more abstract and have less of a clear connection. I was a bit confused by some of the examples used for metaphors. For example, the first example uses steam to represent anger. However, is this not just symbolism? Are all symbols metaphors in a visual sense then? The second example with travel also didn’t seem like there were any metaphors going on.

Finally, the author talks about how blending is used to map domains onto each other so that they almost occupy a new space of understanding to the reader.