tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post3785969078125064229..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: The Unexpected-Alison MilerAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-41409439746400264472011-09-20T17:25:09.058-07:002011-09-20T17:25:09.058-07:00Following Alex, I admire your attention to specifi...Following Alex, I admire your attention to specific details of the image itself. We aren't trained to really "read" images with care, unless we have specific training in art history, art, etc., so this was nice to see. I have a somewhat different reading of the monster's big eyes - pay attention when you read McCloud this week to various related discussions; it's something I'd like to return to, possibly using your blog entry.<br /><br />If you revise, it might be interesting to do more with a film - if I remember correctly (not 100% sure) the monster seeing himself in the water *is* filmed in the 1935 sequel (Bride of Frankenstein) to the 1931 film. I'd be very interested to see what you make of that film and of those particular moments in it (if I remember right).<br /><br />Anyway, I liked this a lot, but I do have one substantial criticism. At the beginning, you basically argue that Ward is critiqueing the film. That's fine, and likely true. But you are more arguing that he is being literalistic in his portrayal of the novel (also fine).<br /><br />But is this literal depiction of the temporarily childlike monster really out of step with the film? Remember when he sees the light for the first time and reaches up for it, while whimpering? Remember even how his first "murder" of Maria started as a game?<br /><br />What I'm trying to suggest, in other words, is that even if Ward is quite literalistic in this mater, that contradicts the film less than you might think.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-13380059072922577922011-09-17T12:59:24.770-07:002011-09-17T12:59:24.770-07:00The portion of the essay about the "point-of-...The portion of the essay about the "point-of-view" of the illustration depicting the monster in the specific manner is very accurate and a valuable observation. I think that sums up pretty well the argument Lynn Ward is trying to make in the illustration. I think there could be a bit more clarification in the essay when you mention the "viewer" if you are or are not referring to an individual who had seen the film previous to reading the novel. In addition, I think it was a great illustration to choose to write about.Alex Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10886343688518972280noreply@blogger.com