tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post8246786352540229903..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: FrankensteinAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-39013622656152981922011-09-26T09:00:27.935-07:002011-09-26T09:00:27.935-07:00Remember, also, that you are supposed to be *evalu...Remember, also, that you are supposed to be *evaluating* ward's argument, not just identifying it.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-85702422713045603732011-09-26T09:00:04.702-07:002011-09-26T09:00:04.702-07:00I fully agree with Alison's comments, so I'...I fully agree with Alison's comments, so I'm going to elaborate on what she said, rather than repeating her work. To me, the central problem is, indeed, that you aren't really explicitly talking about Ward's argument - I think the reason for that is a huge assumption you make.<br /><br />You assert, without demonstrating, that in the text it's possible to sympathize either with the monster or with the De Laceys; you also state, without exploring the problem, that including the father in the image would make us less symphatetic (wouldn't that depend on how he was portrayed, or what he was doing?).<br /><br />Probably your actually argument - the thing which needs to be defended - would have two parts.<br />1) Ward's "reading" of the monster is highly symphatetic<br />2) This "reading" is good/bad for reasons x, y, and z<br /><br />But you don't actually prove/defend the argument itself.<br /><br />Your "reading" if the image is quite good (although I'd like more about the woman, and about Felix himself - you repeat yourself talking about the monster), but it isn't focused enough as an argument.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-87501970643580928432011-09-24T12:33:20.347-07:002011-09-24T12:33:20.347-07:00I think the first paragraph should focus on the &q...I think the first paragraph should focus on the "argument" that Lynd Ward is attempting to make. Instead of explicitly telling the reader what is happening in the image, I think it is more interesting and effective to describe the event throughout your essay. In doing so you can break down the image into its specific aspects and at the same time, comment on their meaning.<br /><br />In the second paragraph, you are basically discussing the position of the monster's body but I think you jump from textual arguments to visual and back again too often. There is a need to mention the text but the prompt asked for a discussion of Ward's image and by referencing the text too much, it takes away from the focus on Ward. Also, the sentence "Ward shows a creature that is so vulnerable and helpless, who is easily knocked down and fails about leaving his body and face unprotected" confused me. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.<br /><br />The third paragraph brings up a good point about the point of view, but the paragraph itself seemed very redundant. I really liked what you said about the viewer being forced to experience his emotions. <br /><br />The fourth paragraph brings up a very good point about the fact that DeLacy isn't in the image--I thought this was very interesting.<br /><br />The fifth paragraph could use a little more (you only address the point of view). I know you don't need to reiterate every point of the previous 4 paragraphs but your conclusion is selling the rest of your points short. Maybe comment on the success of Ward's effort?Alison Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18238252015805908527noreply@blogger.com