When reading Erard’s essay the second time, I noticed some new things that I hadn’t noticed before, and also reinforced some of the ideas I had about his essay the first time I read it. Although reading was very helpful, hearing other people’s ideas about the essay in class was the most beneficial to me. Hearing other people’s takes on what Erard had to say really made me think about the essay more. It made me think about the things that I said about the text, which was very useful when I went back to read it the second time. Without this class discussion, I don’t think I would have picked up on what Erard may have really saying at some points throughout his essay.
One claim I reacted to the same way was the paint brush metaphor in the beginning of the article. This metaphor is still, in my opinion, not helpful to understanding how a paintbrush works at all. After thinking about it more, I still believe a pump is something mechanical, and a paintbrush is just what a paintbrush is.
Lastly, glossing the text was somewhat helpful to me. During my first reading of the text, I was already looking up words I didn’t know. Although, during my second reading I caught a few more words that I must have skipped over that I did not understand. Those words were prototypical, and provocation. Glossing the text and defining these words definitely gave me a better understanding of the text in its individual parts, and overall as a whole.
I am thrilled that you found the class discussion helpful. It’s such a privilege to be able to sit in that room and hear all your different points of view. I’ve found that class conversation can lead us to amazing places. Thank you for your participation!