What do we mean when we say it today?
You might have heard the Metallica song. You might have heard someone use this in a movie, or as an adage. However you heard it being used, we're pretty sure you've come across "fight fire with fire" before. We know we have.
Today, this phrase means exactly what the Bastard intended it to mean: fight the same way your opponent is fighting. But usually with a cooler head, and slightly less rage and aggression behind it. Kind of like telling someone "go get 'em" or "don't back down."
Somewhere along the way, the "fight" got added to this phrase. Shakespeare might have created the "fire with fire" part, but it seems by the time Western novels rolled out in the 1840s and 1850s, it had become "fight fire with fire."
Some of you might be wondering what it would actually look like to start an actual fire when another one was already burning. We're glad you asked, Shmoopers, because we've found evidence of this exact thing.
In 19th century America, it was pretty common practice to deliberately start a fire to stop a fire that was already raging out of control. The idea was that if the smaller fire burned out all the flammable material before the bigger fire got there, the first fire would be deprived of fuel, and just burn out.
Believe it or not, it worked. The "back-fire" as it was known, would stop the larger, original fire. In fact, it worked so well that the practice is still in use for fighting forest fires to this very day.
You safety junkies might have guessed that this isn't always safe. The lack of safety equipment in the early days meant that fire was difficult to control, so sometimes this would just create a much larger fire. Talk about a heated situation.
In any case, most people who say "fight fire with fire" aren't exactly suggesting we all become arsonists. But they are saying that we should use the same passion and rage that the first fire has. Or in this case, we guess that would be your opponent. Rage on.