In my second reading of Erards essay I had a clearer experience than my first. His whole explanation on how some metaphors need furniture made more sense to me. I realized that he was stating that when designers do these types of metaphors, they are giving a lot of room for you to figure out what he meant, and that these were the metaphors that needed furniture. When before I thought that having furniture was the easier metaphor to understand. I also was a lot more critical in my second reading. During my first read I felt forced to go along with what he was stating. The second time around I would stop and question his opinion on what he was explaining.
In the passage, when I was glossing the text, I had a hard time understand a few words such as conventional metaphors. Before, I thought these were metaphors that were “dangerous.” When I had glossed the text the second time, I later used Google to find out that it was simply a metaphor that “is commonly used in everyday language”.
I felt that glossing the text the next time I read was useful in better understanding the passage. This is because, in my first read I was paying to close attention to the text. Then the second read, only glossing, allowed me to not pay as much attention to little detail, and open my mind to understanding the complete intention of the writer.
Excellent. I can see how knowing the word “conventional” would help clear up some meaning in Erard’s text. Keep looking those words up! As I’m sure you noticed, it can make a big difference.