Peer Review Analysis and Comments on Philosophy
Having my classmates review my story
was very encouraging and helpful. I never thought that I was very good at
writing, but some of them seemed to like it. Most comments were very helpful,
even though most of it had to do with grammar and syntax. No one caught my
heresy until I told them, so I was glad that it wasn’t so apparent in the
story. I had written the stag as the Holy Ghost and the real on does not grant
wishes. That would be similar to the prosperity gospel. I liked how most people
caught on to my biblical themes and wording. I borrowed a lot of the creation
half from Job, Isaiah, and Genesis. I failed here too, but I think we need to
be more intentional about giving criticisms about each other’s writings rather
than just saying what we liked. We can’t grow as writers unless our errors or
bad phrasing is bluntly pointed out. It was pointed out to me that Nod’s story
reflects Mr. Tumnus’ story quite a bit. Mr. Tumnus was betraying Aslan in a
similar that Nod was. In the end, Mr. Tumnus was only allowed redemption
because Aslan permitted it, just like Nod. I hadn’t pictured this whole idea of
redemption, but the way it is written, it appears that Mr. Tumnus sees how he
has sinned against Aslan when he tells the tale. It was interesting to create a
story within a story. It was very fun to base mythology off of what Narnians
would recognize rather than just what the reader would recognize. It felt
almost plagiarizing for some reason though. I felt strange weaving a story
within another author’s world. I disagree when Plato said that Poets were not
philosophers because they created what they didn’t understand. I would argue
that, for the most part, philosophers don’t understand what they are saying
either. We see with Socrates when he was recorded as saying “I know one thing:
that I know nothing”.
No comments:
Post a Comment