Overall, my goal was to annotate more analytically and I believed I achieved this goal. I was able to not only ask more questions, but think deeper and criticize some points made by the author. 

The surrounding context for this text is that it was published by Yo-Yo Ma, a world renowned cellist and songwriter. He is ver accredited in terms of awards he has received for his artistic ability in music. It is interesting how he bridges the gap initially in his biography of STEM and the arts and how it’s imperative that we need arts. Secondly, the circumstantial context is that it was interesting to read Ma’s perspective on things. I did not always agree on how much STEAM has to be emphasized but he does make fair points, it would be good to read up more on. Lastly, the intentional context is one that should pertain to everyone and anyone who reads it. It’s about cultural diffusion and how we need to understand everyone and not prejudge. Behind this is the factor of how the arts play into it and how they are very important.

Globalization – the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.

Bandwidth – the energy or mental capacity required to deal with a situation.

Lemming – a person who unthinkingly joins a mass movement, especially a headlong rush to destruction.

Lamott points out some very interesting and highly relatable points to writing your first draft and the importance of going back to revise that initial work. In my experience of this first draft, it was definitely all over the place until I went back to try and piece together all of my ideas and themes within paragraphs.   For me it wasn’t necessarily a first “shitty draft” as it was just the first time actually putting text on paper. As I moved on in my paper and took breaks in between writing I was doing all of this piecing together and trying to fix a bulk of these problems. Now I’m beginning the “real” revision.

Strategy:

My goal for revisioning is to structure my essay a bit better. Some of my paragraphs are lengthy and could be separated, while other paragraphs are short and could be expanded upon. Overall, I would also like to add more analysis. I feel I have a lot now but could always use more to enhance the support evidence and strengthen my overarching argument.

The first step to doing this will be figuring out how I can break apart my paragraphs. Once this is done I’m in hopes that my essay will flow even better than it does now. As far as analyzing more, I will be going back to each quote I chose and my personal life experience and try to relate it back to not only the thesis but also the bigger picture of things. 

The most challenging part, although it is very general, will be to add more analysis. I feel as though I have a lot of analysis at the moment but I am hoping that once I go back and reread my essay I will see areas where I can add more or have new ideas flow into my head that I can add. 

If a challenge arises, I will try my best to resolve it on my own. If I cannot do this I will resort to having some of my friends read it that are also in ENG110 and see if they have any suggestions. If this does not work out, as a last resort, I will see our writing fellow, Emmy, in hopes she may be able to shed some light. 

In today’s day in age it has become uncommon to notice the effect that metaphors have on our mental health. In “The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors” by Dhruv Khullar discusses the interesting and compelling aspects of metaphors, specifically military oriented ones, in the health services field. Khullar introduces the idea that the notion of calling illnesses such as cancer a “fight” or “battle” can actually have a negative on their health outlook, even though it is meant to do quite the opposite. He says how they can actually cause patients to become more depressed. This is because they feel as though they have not fought hard enough in their “battle”, causing their sorrows. Nonetheless, he also realizes that it may have the opposite effect on patients as well. If they view their illness as an “enemy” it will give them willpower to “fight” more and have more of a positive and hopeful view. Overall, a metaphor is neither good nor bad, it is how the reader interprets it that makes it good or bad to them.

Language can be said to be the root of everything we think and say. After reading “The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors” it can clearly be shown how much of an impact metaphors can have on our minds. Never before reading this essay had I considered this, however, it is entirely true. Words can affect how we go about viewing things. I believe the most important point Khullar makes is that it is how each individual responds to each metaphor determines to them if it is good or bad. This also leads into the ideas of what Erard discusses of how metaphor designers are a true thing and the types of metaphor design of how we connect A and B. Geary also discusses this in his TED Talk in a similar fashion of relating X to Y. Overall, regardless of who designs metaphors each person will perceive them differently and will therefore have a different mental image of how it will resonate with them. 

“Metaphorically Speaking” by James Geary: “Metaphorical thinking is essential to how we understand ourselves and others, how we communicate, learn, discover and invent. But metaphor is a way of thought before it is a way with words.” – This reinforces the ideas of thinking about metaphors and the possibilities they will inspire within us. 

“See Through Words” by Michael Erard: “They’re meant to make someone realize that they’ve only been looking at one side of a thing.” – Shows how a deeper understanding is an “output” of metaphors.

“The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors” by Dhruv Khullar: “Ultimately, any metaphor—military or otherwise—is not inherently good or bad. Rather, the utility of each depends on a patient’s culture, values, experiences, and preferences.” – This is the overarching point that how we understand each metaphor is individually based on who we are as individuals.

While reading any work of literature for the first time it’s sometimes difficult to analyze and truly soak in the ideas that the author is presenting to their audience. Even with active reading, such as annotations it’s still difficult. It’s paramount that you read any literature more than once. “Glossing the text” was a very important aspect because it can help define, or redefine, and help make connections that you may have not previously noticed.

Overall, I would say that I didn’t realize anything new or outstanding. By glossing the text it just helped me to better understand the material and some of the connections that the author was trying to make the audience look at. Prior to class, for example, I was under of what the word “pseudo (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudo meant. In my first time reading it, I knew that he was using the term “pseudo mistake”, so I understood it was some type of mistake. What “glossing the text” helped me do was to realize that it was a fake mistake, something the author was doing purposely to grab the readers attention. In general, this essay was a pretty easy read and did not have many unknown words. If this were to be harder with more difficult words then “glossing the text” would be infinitely helpful. 

One interesting notion I noticed early on was the question of “can metaphors be designed?”. I found this very interesting because the way I thought about it was that everything is designed and created. How else could we go about creating something, especially with words? Don’t we have to have a design in mind? The author then goes on to say how they can be designed. He then discusses how metaphors are used so we can better understand abstract things. I agree and disagree with this. I think the author is right when saying it’s used to understand abnormal things but I also believe they can be used to understand anything.

Another interesting point the author made was the idea of mapping between two concepts and categorization proposals. While the author deems these two ideas to be different, I must disagree. I see little to no difference between them. In both cases you are taking something unfamiliar and pairing it with something more common/familiar so people can understand it. Also, in both instances you are designing and creating a metaphor. I didn’t truly follow the authors reasoning to how they are different because to me they seemed the same. The process may have been slightly different but overall the same.

I haven’t been using this blogging system for very long, but overall it seems fairly straightforward and easy to use. However, I’d still take a pen and a piece of paper over this any day. I’m old fashioned and am not always welcoming to technology. It does seem like a good idea though to have a public place where you can easily showcase your work.