an older, wrinklier, flabbier, and generally more dissolute version of himself. So, in this blend space, Mendes is
not identified with Clooney as we see him in the media and on the silver screen, but with this far less attractive counterfactual version of Clooney. Figure 2.2 shows the combination of both integration networks that a reader must construct to obtain the meaning of the original simile (which, at its most reductive, asserts that Mendes resembles an older, wrinklier, flabbier, and generally more dissolute version of Clooney). Note that we have elided from our analysis here the metonymy that is necessary to understand a comparison between a person and a painting: Mendes does not look like the painting itself (a flat painted surface in a decorative frame) but like the person that we imagine to be depicted in the painting. So, lurking beneath this simple-seeming simile is a blend within a blend, which in turn hinges on a metaphor (identifying Clooney and his imagined lifestyle choices with Gray and his soul-consuming narcissism), another simile (between Mendes and a less attractive version of Clooney), and a metonymy (allowing portraits to stand for their subjects).
Figure 2.1: A conceptual integration of two mental spaces, one containing George Clooney and one containing Dorian Gray (reproduced from Veale [2012a]).
