tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post8039825758447436610..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: Storyteller - Surviving With OthersAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-81726294379645858402014-09-13T10:44:48.119-07:002014-09-13T10:44:48.119-07:00I'm not sure what you're really trying to ...I'm not sure what you're really trying to do here. The only obvious argument would read something like "people need support to survive" - but that is so simple and so obvious that it's not really a suitable argument at any time, let alone a suitable argument about a specific book. Which isn't to say that you shouldn't be making a more precise argument about Silko's understanding of how support and survival relate.<br /><br />You summarize too much and analyze too little. Here's an example. You give a long, detailed summary of the story about the girls and how the people turn into stone. You want to turn it into a story about support, but although you acknowledge the problem with that (that they're turned to stone anyway!) you don't deal with that problem. <br /><br />Similarly, you summarize ways in which Silko's great-grandmother (not her grandmother, unless I badly misremember) is important to her, and gives her support. But you don't get into any of the interesting problems in that relationship, circulating around the book they read, language, religion, etc. You stick to too much summarizing and drawing an incredibly general point from them, rather than focusing on the weirder/more problematic/more difficult parts of the text, and making an argument about what *they* mean.<br /><br />Short version: if you summarize and say things that everyone will agree with (support is important...) you're not really arguing anything at all.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com