tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post8719147946737391321..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: Revised Essay on Peter Stillman Jr.Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-58929721523603471642011-11-20T13:57:03.329-08:002011-11-20T13:57:03.329-08:00I had to read this through twice before making any...I had to read this through twice before making any comments at all. I think that's more a good thing than a bad thing - this essay has its depths, its twists and turns, and I'd certainly rather have that than any overly simplistic, unambitious piece of work.<br /><br />I think my questions are fairly conceptual.<br /><br />1) If Peter Jr. rejects his given identity, or is searching for a new one, why doesn't he change his name? Note also that he enigmatically says that Peter Stillman is not his *real* name, implying that he does have a real name, but we're not privy to it. I think you're on the brink of claiming that his real name is Humpty Dumpty, because of the connection between their language. I think that if that's what you intend, you could benefit from making it more explicit.<br /><br />2) If Peter Stillman Jr. does, in fact, speak/write God's language, as you seem to believe, doesn't that imply that the father was successful? To me, that's the most obvious problem with what you're writing. His father's intention was that he speak God's language; while struggling to reject his father, he does, in fact, speak God's language; by your argument, doesn't this mean that he does, in fact, have exactly the identity his father prepared for him. It's possible, I guess, that the God's language he actually speaks is not the God's language that his father intended; in fact, I suspect you might have gone there if you'd thought this question through. My point is that his father's goals are curiously absent from this essay, but extremely relevant to it.<br /><br />3) Given your argument from Psychology today, what does it mean that PS Sr. has given PS Jr. his own name? He wants to impose his own identity on him - and yet, in a sense, he wants him to have no identity. That fundamental fact seems really, deeply relevant to your argument - but you aren't engaging with it.<br /><br />I was interested in your approach, and enjoyed reading this through twice. The Humpty Dumpty argument is beginning to make more sense to me, and your engagement with the text has improved. But because you are making complex, far from obvious argument, you would have benefited tremendously from engaging with other potential points of view - this is an essay which could use some consideration of counterarguments, from beginning to end. Of course, that also means that it's an essay with an interesting, worthy, and complicated approach.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-3623085590004672412011-11-17T15:20:54.424-08:002011-11-17T15:20:54.424-08:00the link to my original post:
http://wipitt.blogs...the link to my original post:<br /><br />http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/11/peter-stillmans-identity-do-over.htmlEstellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051080170016033223noreply@blogger.com