tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post5589554557047088468..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: Revision 2: The Younger Peter Stillman: More Than Just Damaged GoodsAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-16365503192461574902011-11-20T14:25:10.222-08:002011-11-20T14:25:10.222-08:00I think your take on the language of innocence in ...I think your take on the language of innocence in the first paragraph is perfectly fine, although your argument seems a little diffuse. If Peter represents a new form of human potentiality, for instance, what *is* it? Where does his potential take us? There are several questions along those lines which appear for me in the first paragraph. The second paragraph emphasizes the diffuseness of the argument: it's very close to being a summary of the relevant parts of the novel. Now, there's no doubt that you needed to go over some of this material - but this doesn't have enough guidance for the reader: I'm very unclear on where you're going with all of it.<br /><br />The third paragraph continues this trend. We talked as a group about the whole umbrella thing, and what it stands for. I like the way you explain the disjointed character of language, and I'm not saying this *couldn't* take us somewhere good, but again, your argument as such isn't clear here.<br /><br />This might sound silly, but your extended discussion of Dog/God/woof actually did a lot for me. Woof and dog should sound alike; Dog and God should not. What you're doing at this moment is digging through some relevant details, with some care, to demonstrate that PS Jr. is, in fact, following his father's design and speaking God's language.<br /><br />You *almost* could have gone straight from the introduction to Dog/God/woof. Doing so would have clarified your argument and gotten straight to the text. I'm not saying everything in between was useless; I'm saying that this part is much better than any of the intermediary material. Arguing simply that PS sr's experiment was a success is, at least, a clear argument (although ideally I'd want to see more about what its success *means*). If that's your real argument, a lot of the intermediary material wasn't really necessary. Remember, you're writing for this class: people have read the book!<br /><br />Now, let's turn to a conceptual question. Here's some material from your conclusion: "After analyzing Peter Sr.’s, “The Garden and the Tower,” the meeting between Quinn and Peter Sr., and the younger Peter’s speech, it is proven that the younger Peter Stillman does not speak a language of damaged goods. "<br /><br />I think what you've proven, or come close to proving, at least, is that PS jr. speaks exactly the kind of language which PS sr. intended him to speak. This is an important point! But I am not at all convinced that it follows that PS sr. is *correct*. In other words, to go there you need to buy into his belief that the language of innocence is one in which words correspond to things, and disjoint concepts are not described through like words.<br /><br />In other words, you're showing that his experiment was a success. But I don't think you're doing anything to show that it means what *he* thinks it means. And here is where some of your weaker material - where to my eye you were basically summarizing Peter Stillman sr.'s arguments - comes in. If you mean what you say, you needed, I think, to make the argument that PS sr's argument is *correct*. <br /><br />To me, then, you're engaging well with the *experiment*, but not with the *theory* upon which that experiment was based.<br /><br />Putting it that way makes me like the essay better, incidentally, because even though I struggled with a big part of the middle to see it as more than summary, I think I have a handle on what you were trying, and it's a good project, even if only parts are well executed.<br /><br />p.s. I'm not crazy about the research. Different research might have helped you clarify your argument faster.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-14639422916070684452011-11-17T18:16:56.509-08:002011-11-17T18:16:56.509-08:00http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/11/younger-peter-s...http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/11/younger-peter-stillman-more-than-just.htmlChristinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13624494908327693172noreply@blogger.com