Verified by 
In a Playboy interview in 1974, when postmodernist novelist John Barth was asked why he permitted himself so many liberties in his work, he replied simply: “I exaggerate for the sake of truth.” Being an English professor at the time, with a specialty in modern and contemporary American fiction, I found the esteemed author’s paradoxical clarification strangely tantalizing. For it seemed to me he had put into words something as profound as it was provocative. And, too, something characteristic of the world’s greatest creators—particularly those who lived centuries ago whose works, because of their ageless universality, remain just as relevant today as they were then.
In this same interview, Barth opined that “truth is shrouded in contradiction and paradox.” That left me convinced that he was definitely onto something. The very fact that the plays and poems of Shakespeare, for instance, have inspired literary analysts to interpret them in such divergent ways seemed “truth enough” that the Bard’s multi-faceted sense of reality required him to embed his literary endeavors in sufficient ambiguity to validate the various meanings ascribed to them.
Over the years, I’ve become increasingly aware that many aphorisms, idioms, maxims, and proverbs are memorable precisely because in their verbal liberties they “hit home,” like nothing else could. And it’s in their overstating their case that, paradoxically, deeper truths are uncovered.
In fact, the term revelation comes from the word reveal, and so for most us to grasp the innermost truth of something, some magnification may be necessary. It’s something like turning up, or amplifying, the volume on a musical selection so that it will have maximum impact on the listener. The reason that, say, both impressionistic and expressionistic paintings generally have more emotional resonance than so-called photographic realism is that the artist behind the former stresses their more personal, feeling connected to their subject.
Take this example from Matthew 19:24—“And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” On its face, this statement is blatantly absurd. Still, it underscores the point that the moral values leading someone to amass great wealth are commonly contrary to the virtues enabling one to be rewarded in the afterlife.
Or, moving from Matthew to Macbeth, consider one of the most startling admissions of guilt in all of literature: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red.” What Macbeth (quite literally, with blood on his hands) is bemoaning here is that his murderous act is unrectifiable, its “stain” permanent, and that nothing will ever redeem it. But, rhetorically speaking, it’s almost unthinkable that his impassioned utterance could be anywhere as emotionally gripping had he cast it in the abstract, reality-based terms I’ve employed to explicate it.
And that’s what might be seen as key here: That although initially hyperbolic statements might be assumed to distort or “spin” the truth—or to embellish veracity beyond recognition—their creators are just taking pains to accentuate, or dramatize, their observations. Their aim is to “show off” a character, theme, or plot feature so as to give it more heft. It’s an indirect way of telling the receiver: “This is important. Think about it. My exaggeration may seem illogical, or even off the wall, but it’s deliberate; purposeful. Though admittedly, it’s a ‘figurative flourish,’ it’s because there’s more here than meets the eye, so don’t overlook it.”
Emojis or emoticons are one way of highlighting the emotions stated or implied in the text they accompany. But such graphic additions can get stale quickly, making them increasingly easy to ignore. And it’s much the same with attempting to emphasize points by routinely putting words in caps, italics, or boldface type. Or maybe ending almost every sentence with an exclamation mark. But what’s far more creative—and therefore more memorable—is using language or images in novel, ingenious, or imaginative ways that surprise an audience and thereby compel them to take special notice.
Here are some everyday exaggerations that are literally false (even nonsensical) but still convey the core of truth. Realistically, they may be over the top, yet in their unusually enhanced or metaphorical way they connote what’s psychologically accurate. In consequence, they warrant being viewed as “truthful” exaggerations:
- I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.
- That Great Dane is as big as an elephant.
- Her snore is as loud as a locomotive.
- His brain is the size of a pea.
- I caught a fish as large as a house.
- I could drown in my tears.
- He must have said that a million times.
- I agree with you 200 percent.
- A watched pot never boils.
Wikipedia, in its section titled “Exaggeration,” notes that such magnification, or over-emphasis, is particularly useful in animation. And this encyclopedic Web reference points out [footnoting two different authors] that, as employed by Walt Disney, the objective was “to remain true to reality, just [present] it in a wilder, more extreme form.” Moreover, “other forms of exaggeration can involve the supernatural or surreal, alterations in the physical features of a character [i..e., caricatures], or elements in the storyline itself.”
Paradox can be seen as complementary to exaggeration in that it also defies normal expectations. And by doing so, it calls upon an audience to center more keenly on the meaning of its subject matter. Consider these examples provided by Google, which also suggest how paradoxes frequently include exaggeration:
- “What a pity that youth must be wasted on the young.” (George Bernard Shaw)
- “Truth is honey, which is bitter.” [And observe how the apparently contradictory way this “eternal truth” is phrased necessitates that the reader put additional effort into fathoming its deeper paradoxical meaning.]
- “I can resist anything but temptation.” (Oscar Wilde)
Note from the above, highly selective illustrations that the use of hyperbole can be understood as ironic, to the point of cynicism (#1), disillusioning, as in “be careful what you wish for ...” (#2), or (#3) humorous, emphasizing that what might seem do-able can be virtually impossible to achieve—something akin to comedian W. C. Field’s declaring that it was easy to quit drinking, since he’d done it thousands of times.
As also exemplified in Google, hyperbolic paradoxes can be satirical. And perhaps the most famous literary example of this is Jonathan Swift’s anonymously published “A Modest Proposal” (1729), representative of the most caustic moral, political, and social commentary. This most unorthodox of essays suggests in the most outrageous, yet straight-faced, manner that the best way to keep young children of the Irish poor from remaining an economic burden to their families is, well, to sell them to be eaten.
Heaping absurdity upon absurdity, the narrator of this outlandishly classic satire proposes that not only would the carcasses of one-year-olds serve as "a delicacy for wealthy nobles but that their skin could be made into handbags and gloves for the ladies." Not to mention their potential as “summer boots for fine gentlemen.”
So again, we have exaggeration with a purpose. Swift, during a time of great famine in Ireland, makes strategic use of hyperbole to underscore the disregard, or even cruelty, evidenced by those in power. By grossly magnifying such inhumanity to make the reader more acutely aware of it, he hoped to inspire readers to take a stand against the do-nothing British policy toward the Irish that gave rise to such injustice.
And this takes us back to the beginning of my post where I discussed the essential truth of what, rhetorically, may seem vastly blown out of proportion. And to that extent it must, literally, be regarded as false. However, it might be said that all great axioms and artistic works aim to heighten reality in order to make fundamental truths more discernible. For we may be so consumed by everyday conflicts and concerns that without such overstatement we might not fully appreciate these eternal verities.
So remember that exaggerating the truth about something doesn’t necessarily make it any less true. Rather, it can illuminate it—or make it transparent—like nothing else could.
© 2020 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All rights reserved.
