In class we discussed how the author s aiming for the audience to be more of a young adult/adult audience, because the author seems to be talking about businesses a lot. I thought that I could better understand this article after rereading it. However, although reading it again helped me to better understand the article, I had already annotated a lot earlier, so it was hard for me to annotate more. I figured what I could do to help me think of some annotations is to think of connections (text to text, text to world, text to self). The first thing I did was read Geary’s transcript again, to get ideas for connections.
Geary’s style of reading is a lot different, just because I think the audience that he’s trying to get at is from like teenagers and up. After reading his transcript and annotating, I realized that there weren’t really any words that were hard to understand. However, reading “See Through Words” was definitely meant for a much older audience, because the language was so complex. For instance two words that I still was not clear about: bottleneck and aptness, so I looked up the definition…
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bottleneck?s=t
Bottleneck in this case, applies to a narrow entrance or pathway. When Erard says “English is not bottleneck,” I now know he means it’s not straight forward.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/aptness?s=t
In this case, Erard uses aptness I think in a sense where he is wondering how long is it going to last that we are just able to understand metaphors on our own, and perceive them however we want?
What I seemed to pick up on the most I think after re reading it was that this article is meant for an older audience, that maybe has a background in business, because it talks about designing a metaphor. I couldn’t really reflect on a text . to self connection, but I did pick up . on how the text can relate to the world. While rereading, I noticed that when the author says “Maybe the best metaphor needs know furniture” (Erard 6). What this means to me is that maybe the best metaphors need know explanation. That can apply to the real world everyday, for instance something that I like to believe is that everything happens for a reason, meaning you don’t always need an explanation for what happens or why it just does, but it works out in the end. That being said, that philosophy that I like to live by, relate a lot to what Erard says. Maybe metaphors don’t need an explanations, you’re supposed to go about them your own way, they never need an explanation.
