Pathetic Fallacy (Figurative Language)

Pathetic Fallacy

In the realm of logic, a fallacy is a common error in reasoning that can seem convincing but which has no logical validity, and proves nothing. In literary terms, fallacies refer to commonly used devices which, while not incorrect in the same strict way as logical fallacies, nonetheless are considered by many to be weak and ineffective devices. Whether these fallacies are considered unsuitable by any given author or critic is a matter of subjective opinion, but the devices they describe are nevertheless worth investigating, and several devices have been given their names through their classification as fallacies, as is the case here.

The pathetic fallacy sounds like the worst, saddest, most unfit fallacy of all, named for how pathetic it is, but it must be noted that the use of the word pathetic here has different connotations than the word has in current popular use. We tend to the use the word to describe a person or thing that is really unworthy, generally undesirable, highly pitiable, and possibly even somewhat disgusting. The roots of the term, however, relate to the Greek term pathos, which has to do with the emotions and their display, as well as empathy, that being our perception and reaction to the emotions we see in others. The word happens to be the basis of our word "pity," which has some negative connotations, and this is how our current word "pathetic" came to hold the negative associations it does.

The pathetic fallacy taps into the earlier, broader sense of the word, and has to do with the attribution of human emotions to non-human entities, especially nature and natural processes. This seems like anthropomorphism (treating something non-human as if it were human), or even personification (treating an inanimate entity as if it were living), but it has another aspect which separates it from these terms. If the natural world responds according to the emotional situation of characters in a poem or story, this is also an example of the pathetic fallacy; nature does not need to be emotional itself, but merely needs to do things that seem to go along with a given event or mood.

Some examples make this phenomenon and its different aspects far more clear. "The wind howled angrily at the window" is an example of the most evident sort of pathetic fallacy, where nature is clearly being personified. The wind seems to be human here, and it is evidently angry. On the other hand, the following is a far more subtle example of the fallacy, where personification is not apparent: "Greta cried, weeping at her terrible fate, her entire world ruined by the horrors of war. Outside, the rain pelted the thin roof and windows of the home, dogs howled, and a grey darkness enveloped the entire scene. In this setting, the sun was difficult even to imagine." Here, the emotional description is where we would expect it to be, firmly rooted in the character Greta. However, notice that external nature seems to be acting in sympathy to her emotions. We associate rain and dark weather with sadness; the howling dog evokes similar associations of loneliness; and it is even suggested that the sun is unimaginable in the situation, which suggests that light, standing for hope and a new beginning, is not possible here. The close proximity of Greta's emotional state and the description of nature causes us to make these associations, and although nature is never described as being sad, it certainly is cooperating to set the mood of Greta's sorrow. Shakespeare himself employs this second form of the fallacy in Macbeth, King Lear, and many other plays and poems, and though it is considered by some to be fallacious under any circumstances, if employed well it can create powerful emotional effects without seeming overly contrived.