Blog #2

When I reread Erard’s essay I had more of an open mind because I knew what the essay was about and how it ended. Rereading it with an open mind allowed me to look over details that I did not pay much attention to the first time. For example, it registered that Erard no longer works in the FrameWorks Institute, he only worked there for five years, not decades that I thought in my head as I read his essay. Also, the second time I read the essay I really noticed how Erard used not one or two other metaphor designers and philosophers but multiple. He had one to three other references on almost all of the pages. All through the essay the first time I was confused on what he was trying to really get at through the essay. As I reread it, it makes more sense that he wanted to show the reader that metaphors are deliberate mistakes that have so much more meaning and are more complex than what you may think the first time you see or hear one. There are more steps that go into making or coming up with a metaphor than what someone may think. They have to see how different cultures may view it, what emotional response they may get, and if it actually makes sense. In addition, I feel like reading it over once seeing what he had to say made rereading it easier because I knew what he was saying especially after I looked up the words I was not sure of. After looking up pseudo, apt, and dissonance there meaning and the reason why Erard put them in his essay made more sense.