Again, choose a sentence or two from this chapter that you found interesting and comment on it. (Include the sentence and page number.) Why did it stand out? Do you agree with what he said? Why or why not?
Pg. 194. Sameness doesn't present us with metaphorical possibilities, whereas difference-from the average, they typical, the expected-is always rich with possibility. I agree with this sentence and that is why it stands out to me. You can derive a metaphor from something that is ordinary and something that you see everyday. It has to be different, special. That's why you can use scars or etc., really anything that makes someone different from others and put them in a difficult situation and there a lots of possibilities for a deeper meaning or to create a metaphor. I love how the author said difference-from the average, the typical, the expected-is always rich with possibility.
Pg. 200-"Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that."
I think that in most cases there is more to a scar or a deformity. In a movie or a story if a character has a scar or something that is wrong with them then you wonder what happened to them and you want to know the story and what happened and why they have that scar or something wrong with them.
Pg. 200 Are deformities and scares therefore always significant? Perhaps not.
I think that a scar in deformity always are significant in a story. It gives a record of their past, shows that kind of dark pain that they have been through. Most people or characters in stories with scares from knife wounds have some kind of an evil ora around them.
Page 194 But by and large a short leg is just a short leg, and scoliosis is just scoliosis. But put that scoliosis on Richard III and, voila, you have something else entirely different.
Physical features play a important factor in what we think about characters. If we see someone with a scar we think that person got a cut, but if you try and look deeper you may see someone with a troubled past that needs a hug. Taking someone's physical features and turning them to part of the personality is a big deal and can be hard to see.
pg.200 Beyond these cautionary elements,though,the real monster is victor,the monsters' maker.
They aren't taking about real monsters but they are talking about people that are always angry and aggressive towards people.And how victor keeps turning people into being that way.To be lk him
pg. 200 Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that.
it means that a deformitiy doesnt always have to be symbolic it could just be a deformity it all depends on the context the writer puts it in
Pg. 200, Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that.
I agree that people who have different scars and disabilities can have them for a reason such as a significant ability, but they could also be just there.
Pg 200- So if a writer brings up a physical problem or handicap or deficiency, he probably means something by it.
I agree with the authors statement. As the author said "it's easier to introduce characters without imperfections." I agree with this also but when introducing a character in a story with some type of deficiency, physical marking the writer is attempting to portraying some type of theme or psychological point.
Pg 200 are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback, merely that.
I know a few people used this but it is the one that really stood out to me because i read a book recently where a kid gets hurt in a boating accident and leg is hurt and scarred. He was a rising basketball star and actually goes as far as to run away from home. The kid felt like with his new scar/deformity his parents wouldnt love him anymore, his friends wouldn't like him so he ran off. But he came back and changed the way ppl looked at him. His deformity was very significant and i think that if an author takes the time ot mention it, then it is significant
Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that. -Page 200. I think that scars or deformities should be percieved as what helps to define you as a person. It is some sort of experience in your life that you've overcome. It could, in a way, be seen as a character builder!
pg 195- You doubt? How many stories do you know in which the hero is different than everyone else in some way. well i think it stands out because everyone is different, and unique in their own way. i mean even the hero has to have some differences that obviously makes him or her different but since the fact that everyone is unqiue it makes us all our own heros sometimes.
Pg. 193 " In real life, when people have any physical mark or imperfection, it means nothing thematically, metaphorically, or spiritually. " This sentence stood out to me because it is a very true statement, and I tried to look for something that noone else noticed. When he says this I believe that he is saying that, although when a person gets hurt it can let us know what type of things they do, because of what they were doing at the time, it has no deep significant meaning to it. However, in pretty much all pieces of literature there is always a scar, injury, etc. that plays a significant part, it could be a symbol of something or whatever , but it always has some kind of deeper meaning than" Oh hey, look you have a scar."
Pg. 194. Sameness doesn't present us with metaphorical possibilities, whereas difference-from the average, they typical, the expected-is always rich with possibility. I agree with this sentence and that is why it stands out to me. You can derive a metaphor from something that is ordinary and something that you see everyday. It has to be different, special. That's why you can use scars or etc., really anything that makes someone different from others and put them in a difficult situation and there a lots of possibilities for a deeper meaning or to create a metaphor. I love how the author said difference-from the average, the typical, the expected-is always rich with possibility.
ReplyDeletePg. 200-"Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that."
ReplyDeleteI think that in most cases there is more to a scar or a deformity. In a movie or a story if a character has a scar or something that is wrong with them then you wonder what happened to them and you want to know the story and what happened and why they have that scar or something wrong with them.
Pg. 200 Are deformities and scares therefore always significant? Perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteI think that a scar in deformity always are significant in a story. It gives a record of their past, shows that kind of dark pain that they have been through. Most people or characters in stories with scares from knife wounds have some kind of an evil ora around them.
Page 194 But by and large a short leg is just a short leg, and scoliosis is just scoliosis. But put that scoliosis on Richard III and, voila, you have something else entirely different.
ReplyDeletePhysical features play a important factor in what we think about characters. If we see someone with a scar we think that person got a cut, but if you try and look deeper you may see someone with a troubled past that needs a hug. Taking someone's physical features and turning them to part of the personality is a big deal and can be hard to see.
pg.200 Beyond these cautionary elements,though,the real monster is victor,the monsters' maker.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't taking about real monsters but they are talking about people that are always angry and aggressive towards people.And how victor keeps turning people into being that way.To be lk him
pg. 200 Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that.
ReplyDeleteit means that a deformitiy doesnt always have to be symbolic it could just be a deformity it all depends on the context the writer puts it in
Pg. 200, Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people who have different scars and disabilities can have them for a reason such as a significant ability, but they could also be just there.
Pg 200- So if a writer brings up a physical problem or handicap or deficiency, he probably means something by it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the authors statement. As the author said "it's easier to introduce characters without imperfections." I agree with this also but when introducing a character in a story with some type of deficiency, physical marking the writer is attempting to portraying some type of theme or psychological point.
Pg 200 are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback, merely that.
ReplyDeleteI know a few people used this but it is the one that really stood out to me because i read a book recently where a kid gets hurt in a boating accident and leg is hurt and scarred. He was a rising basketball star and actually goes as far as to run away from home. The kid felt like with his new scar/deformity his parents wouldnt love him anymore, his friends wouldn't like him so he ran off. But he came back and changed the way ppl looked at him. His deformity was very significant and i think that if an author takes the time ot mention it, then it is significant
Are deformities and scars therefore always significant? Perhaps not. Perhaps sometimes a scar is simply a scar, a short leg or a hunchback merely that. -Page 200. I think that scars or deformities should be percieved as what helps to define you as a person. It is some sort of experience in your life that you've overcome. It could, in a way, be seen as a character builder!
ReplyDeletepg 195- You doubt? How many stories do you know in which the hero is different than everyone else in some way.
ReplyDeletewell i think it stands out because everyone is different, and unique in their own way. i mean even the hero has to have some differences that obviously makes him or her different but since the fact that everyone is unqiue it makes us all our own heros sometimes.
Pg. 193 " In real life, when people have any physical mark or imperfection, it means nothing thematically, metaphorically, or spiritually. " This sentence stood out to me because it is a very true statement, and I tried to look for something that noone else noticed. When he says this I believe that he is saying that, although when a person gets hurt it can let us know what type of things they do, because of what they were doing at the time, it has no deep significant meaning to it. However, in pretty much all pieces of literature there is always a scar, injury, etc. that plays a significant part, it could be a symbol of something or whatever , but it always has some kind of deeper meaning than" Oh hey, look you have a scar."
ReplyDelete