tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post2773637075510840450..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision 2: Use of Images in Jimmy CorriganAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-79587342270872350182013-11-09T13:19:38.952-05:002013-11-09T13:19:38.952-05:00I like the "anti-superhero" idea in the ...I like the "anti-superhero" idea in the introduction. I'm not sure that you've really pinned down what the idea means yet, but it's an effective and engaging introduction, despite a couple minor grammatic errors (colon usage, for instance).<br /><br />I like your revised discussion of Jimmy's childhood encounter with Superman. I especially like how you clarified what you mean by the mask signifying a kind of blindness. The transition into his adulthood was awkward, though - it's hard to follow exactly what you're saying. Splitting this long paragraph into two and then working on exactly what you're trying to say in the second would have been the right move here, I think.<br /><br />I'm torn about your discussion of the generations. It's an important idea, and I think you're onto something - the problems with male role models persist through the generations, and that's a good topic to think about at length. Your actual writing is sometimes hard to follow, though, and in particular you needed to do something with the fact that seeing Jimmy's great-grandfather as superman is an anachronism. That part of the story takes place in 1892-3, long before the character of superman was invented. That doesn't mean that you're wrong - in fact, your argument implies that the idea of superior male role model is the important thing, not the particular details of superman himself - but it's a little unclear to me what *you* are arguing.<br /><br /><br />That lack of clarity gets worse in your conclusion. You have explored some interesting topics in this essay - the depiction of the great-grandfather as superman, the concept of the anti-superhero, etc. - but at the end you don't say much beyond the obvious fact that Jimmy's father (whether absent or present) is a great disappointment to him. That is obvious, and would have been just as obvious if the metaphor of superman was never used. In the second paragraph, you do much better with what the use of Superman *means* - I would have liked to see your ideas (about the mask, for instance, and how it effects Jimmy's perception) cross over into a detailed analysis of his father (or perhaps of his great-grandfather back in the 1890s). While this versions improves over the previous drafts, at the heart the argument is still unclear and underdeveloped, although the most interesting parts of it (especially in the 2nd paragraph) *have* moved in a positive direction.<br /><br />Also, where's the research?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com