Well, overall, the discussions went well. In theory, I should give a test on these questions to see what people were paying attention to. Timing is on your side that we do not have time for a test. For this evening you may choose from the following:
Why would drawings be good or bad for all books? How does this connect to other forms of visual media? Why do authors not use drawings for their novels in regards to the expectations of the reader? Do you get the story better or do you need to find your own images when reading?
Or
What would the story have been like if it had been written by a child of a fundamentalist? How would that person create their judgement of Iran differently than Marjane?
55 comments:
If the story had been written by a child of a fundamentalist, it would be very different. It would be for the war and attacking people on the side of the street that arent wearing their veils right. Instead of their parents revolting, theyd be working with other fundamentalists and they would be attacking people, making them follow their rules, instead of the ways of their religions, and the laws of the government. Theyd be killing people inside their homes, robbing people, theyd be worse than people not wearing their veils right. Their judgment of Iran would be differently from Marjanes because they wouldnt really think of it as home, as a place they group up as, they might think of it as a place of disguist. They might think this because of the people that arent following their ways, and doing exactly what the government is trying to make them do, like go out and raid, and kill people for absolutly no reason. They wouldnt be as patriotic as Marjane either, they wouldnt want to help fight for their country, they would only be focused on the people inside of it and how their acting, unlike Marjane and how she wanted to go and fight fundamentalists and the Iragi's, to get the war to stop.
If a child of a fundamentalist wrote this book it would be completly different. Their views of Iran would be that Iran before the religious people came to power was savage like. They would feel that the new Iran was a better place for people to live. The fundamentalist would have also been brainwashed by the Islam movement. Also they may have portrayed the revolutionisrs as crazy, animal like people. The child of the fundamentalist also would try to show why a Islam run country is better than a democracy run government. He or she would have shown why the veil was better for the community than for the rights of the individual. I think that the story wouldn't have been nearly as good because we wouldn't agree with the fundamentalist's views. We wouldn't agree because they don't don't like the western influence that we have on their country. They probalitity would believe the western countries were the reason for the revolutions.
I think that drawings for all books would be bad. I think this because sometimes you dont want to look at the pictures. You want to imagine it in your head sometimes, challenge yourself a little. Others forms of visual media is like movies and stuff. A book is just like a movie, with books you read also though. In novels authoes dont use pictures because alot of the readers like to vission in their head what the story looks like. They dont get it well ebought if its just pictures there. Theres no fun in it either if you dont get to imagine wut the characters look like your self. It depends on what kind of book im reading if i get it without pictures or if i need pictures in order to get it. I like imagining what the characters of a book looks like alot of the times. If theres pictures i dont get to have the fun of making them up.
Katlyn Twigg 2nd HOur
I think that drawings for all books would be bad. However, I think that pictures for some books would be a good idea. Some authors want their reader to visualize what is happening in the book. Sometimes its a good thing to imagine the book in your own head and not just see it on paper. Another form of visual media would be movies. Many books get made into movies. Its kind of cool to read a book with no drawings, and then to see the book as a movie. Not all authors use drawings because some authors want people to invison what is going on in the story. Also, some readers like visualizing compared to seeing pictures in a book. I understand books better when I see pictures. However, sometimes I like reading really detailed books without pictures so that I can imagine the images in my head.
Becca Need
3rd Hour
3rd
Persepolis would have been a completely different story if it were to be written from a fundamentalist's point of view. The whole view of Persepolis is coming from a girl who grew up living against the values of the government. If it were to change, then she wouldn't have any judgment against the government, because she would agree with what they were saying. Personally, I don't think that this type of story would be as interesting because there wouldn't be any struggle between with this girl and her changing government. There wouldn't be much to talk about because the struggles in this story would not exist. I think that the story would talk about how much this girl disagrees with the people who opposed the government. It would be interesting if this girl's parents were fundamentalists and she was not. Marjane's story was so interesting because it dealt with her family trying to cope with the changing government but still keeping their old values.
Personally i think that all books should be like this. I dont like to read expecally when you have to connect things in homework about books. I think that if all books were like this it would be bad because people would become dependent on these pictures. reading opens your mind and makes you think about things so if all books were as easy as drawings then there wouldnt be much benifit to read. I think that all authors dont make their novels like this becasue its harder to write a novel like that. Its easier to write out a story rather then having to connect pictures and text. I get the story better becasue its makes the images for me and it helps me becasue i cant focus when all it is, is text. For others it may bore them to read like a comic book because it benifits them to have to create their own pictures.
Whether the book is a cartoon and not a serious topic such as Percepalis, i still feel no matter what there are times when and when not authors shall make drawings in their books. personally i found the books pictures to be a very big help throughout the book, making it easiar for me to comprehend. This connects to other forms because many different directors of films or movies base things such as this into cartoons or other animated things. Other than for the exception of the reader, i feel authors rarely choose to do drawings due to the topic being more serious and for the readers to be able to really think to them selves what is going on. Another thing which comes hard to authors as they use drawings is the sence of discription. For an author to use drawing is taking away alot of the room which can be used by an author to desrcibe to the reader the information. Persoanlly, i find pictures very helpful when it comes to reading. When i read books, i may seem to get into it and enjoy the topic, but is still find myself constantly loosing my train of thought. ZThe use of pictures on the other hand let me read the passage and look deep into the picture, getting my imagiation going helping me picture it better.
conman
I really liked the graphic novel format of this book and it helped me understand it. I don't think it would be a good idea for all books but for some it would. An example is lord of the flies because it would help play out the story and be easier to understand. This connects to other forms of visual media because I am a visual learner and understand things better when I see it. Advertisements are mean to be eyecatching and draw attention just like the pictures in books. Authors don't use drawings for their novels because they want to paint a picture with words and have the reader understand it that way. I didn't have to make my own images for this book, and it would have been really confusing without Satrapi's memoir images there to help me understand.
I think drawings are only good for some books. Persepolis was a good example of a book that could have pictures. In my preference, the pictures helped me a lot with the understanding of the book. If I didnt understand what was being said in the caption, I would look at the picture. I think that some authors don't use pictures regards to the readers expectations because they want the reader to be able to come up with those images on their own. They want the reader to visualize these things on their own and make their own image on what they come up with from the text. Also because the author wants us to come up with our own image without seeing anything.Like I said before, the pictures did help me understand the story overall.
Cody
For tonights blog i picked the top one.
I think that drawings in books are good, but can also be bad. For this type of book, when it is someones point of view, it is good to have pictures. It helps the reader see what the author saw. It is bad in other books like maybe Lord of The Flies. It would take away the readers perspective and would force the reader to believe thats what the people and surroundings looked like. It would take away the imagination out of the reader. This connects to Harry Potter i think. People who read the book first then saw the movie got an idea of what everything looked like. The made their own charactoristics in their head. NOw when they see the movie those things they thought of go away, and maybe ruin the book for them. I think that aothors dont use pictures becuase they like to explain the characteristics of somethings and want the reader to interprut that. They want the reader to use their imagination and make their own feelings about the book. Either way works for me. I liked this bok for a change cuz i didn't have to do much work in the imagination zone. All though in some books i like to make up my own things of the way people look and what things look like.
Zack Ruffin
In my opinion I think drawings would be bad for all books. When reading a book you use your imagination to picture what the writer is telling you. Even though drawings are a creative way of telling a story I believe that writing and picturing things in your mind is more powerful. Some books are made into movies. It's interesting to read the book and than see it in movie form. In my opinion the book is usually better than the movie because the book doesn't leave out all the details. Movies usually have parts of the books taken out. Authors do not use drawings in their novels because they want the reader to imagine what they perceive the people in the book to look like, the places that they describe. It's more personal to the reader to visualize in their mind what someone or something looks like. I don't think you get the story better by drawings; if I can visualize the images in my I get the story better. The images that I make become real to me and that is how I get an understand of what is going on in a particular reading.
Drawings for some books are a good thing. It provides you with a clearer picture of how the author saw things, and how they felt when they saw them. That being said, drawings in other books would not be good. When I read novels on my own, they are typically fiction. People like Stephen King and James Patterson. When I read these books, I tend to let my mind wander and imagine things my own way as I read them. A graphic novel, makes that a little more difficult, because you already have a picture of how things went down right in front of you. Well, I suppose when it come to media bias, they can only show you the things that they want you to see. If you see only half the story, then you may form an opinion about the entire story without hearing or seeing the other half. As with the authors I stated earlier, they expect you to use your imagination. When Stephen King writes, he wants you to take what he writes and imagine it your own way. Personally, I like making my own picture. It lets me be a little bit more free in my reading.
The story as a fundamentalist would have similarities and difference to how it has been written. The child would have completely different views than Marji. Most likely, however the child's parents were probably a lot like Satrapi's. The child's parents would have a strong belief on the view and stand up for what they believe in. the child would still have to deal with the violence that surrounds themselves. i don't believe that either side really had it better when dealing with violence. The child's judgment of Iran would be completely different than Satrapi's. that child would believe that western influence was wrong and that they needed to follow all of the rules of the fundamentalists. everything could be different and opposite, but the child is still a child and still deals with the same things that Satrapi did.
Drawing wouldn't be good for all books. I think people should use drawings when they want the readers to "see" their point of view in order to undertand what's going on. In the book, the author is telling her story through a childs perception, so cartoon pictures best helps her tell her view on the issues. Not all books have the right information or storyline to have pictures or cartoons. For this type of story when there is historical information involved, i like the pictures because it gives me a better understanding of what she saw and what went on in her head as a child. Plus it made the story less boring. Sometimes finding me own images when reading is better, but not for this kind of book.
i dont read much. but i liked the style persepolice was in like comic form.i would like it if all books were like this cause then it would be easeir to picture but somtimes wen u get into a book u can picture wats happening well with a comic u cant do that because it gives u a picture so the comic actully restrics ur imagination but in my opinion comics better.
Drawings would be bad for all books for a few reasons. Firstly, I like using my imagination with most books. Pictures ruin the book for me most times. I like picturing most books in my own way. It's like a movie based on a book: Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. I think authors dont use pictures because they want the readers to set their own expectations for the book. Personally, I have an easier time reading usually if there's no pictures. In some cases it's different. For example, if i'm having a hard time really getting into a book I need pictures to keep me interested or help me understand because I have a hard time with it.
James Richardson
3rd hour
Drawings for all books would be a bad thing in my opinion. People would get to use their own imaginaton as much because it would already be there for them. Imaginations can be used to a great use thinking off all posibilities for a situation. Images for every book would create less use of our minds. For example books and movies. In most cases people veiw the books better than the movie. This is because they can interpret their own image on what they think is going on. Not everyone thinks alike, so trying to conform to one idea wouldn't be sufficient. Authors do not use drawings for their novels because their allowing the readers to come up with their own expectations. REaders visualize all the little things that the author doesnt explain. I personally get the story better because I can visualize what I want to see. If I read about a beautiful home and pictured it. Then was given a picture of what the beautiful home was supposed to be. I probably wouldn't exactly agree. I like having my own thoughts about something, instead of it being put in my head.
In regards to the first question I think it would be bad to have all stories be graphic novels. It depends on the age group that the author is directing the novel to. I think how Satrapi wrote Persepolis as a graphic novel was a good idea. As a teenager though, it was easier to see what was going on during the war and actually be able to visualize it. A graphic novel is just like a news paper in a way; people tend to read stories with pictures attached so you can read about it but also see a picture to understand what the article is talking about. Some authors might not use drawings because if they expect an older age group to read it, they might find drawings childish and think that they wont like the book as much. Reading a story with the pictures there made me understand it a lot better. Without some of the pictures in there I might have been confused at certain parts; since I didn't know too much about the war and everything that was going on.
Hannah Aittama
Drawings could be good for all books because you get the exact imagery that the author intended. They may be bad for all books, because, you don't really get the full effect of details blatinly worded out, such as emotions and feelings. These can be seen in images but not as well as it worded. You can also say a lot more in text space than in images, literaly. This connects to other forms of visual media, such as movies, and television series. The director and actors tell the story exactly how they want and that is exact what you see. I believe most authors don't use images for their novels because it seems childish and, not all authors can draw well. I think a lot of adults would hold no interest in reading a novel that is set up like a comic book. They expect something series and sophistacated. Sometimes I wouild rather read the story through text than through comic style. I read the japanese manga series, which are basicly exactly like Perspolis but more detailed drawing. Sometimes I would rather be reading the story out than looking at images. I sometimes get confused and would rather have read how they felt then saw it. Both can be fun, I just think it depends on the story.
Megan Kastelen
2nd hour
I personally think that drawings wouldn't be good for all books. We are so used to not thinking and processing due to TV and computers (visual media). We don't normally have to think and try to process what's going on. However, in books we must imagine and build off of what is being said in the book. With pictures in books I think it kind of takes away from that. I think that authors don't use drawings in novels because they want us to imagine and build our own conclusions off the book. They expect us to think and put ourselves in their shoes. I don't think I got the story better or worse by using pictures, but just differently. With the pictures I think I concluded and felt what the author wanted me to feel and conclude. Without pictures I think I would have imagined and built off the story. I could have thought outside the box. Neither way is wrong, but I feel like it all depends on what the author is trying to get across.
Kristen Pauly
2nd hr.
The story coming from a fundamentalist child would be completely opposite. They would be raised to oppose everything that is happening. The veil and religion would be a main focus over freedom. The fundamentalist would also like how the shah played a good role to help bring back there culture. The fundamentalists would be quite opposite during the revolt. These people would be the ones who tell on there neighbors, friends families and cause fights. They only do what they view correct. There judgment on Iran would be similar yet opposite. They would view the others as extremists and look down upon them. They would view Iran as a take over, a civil war.
For most of books, pictures would not be good. This is because, the author paints a picture for you within the text so well, you can usually visualize it. However, for some books, normally books like Persepolis, pictures are necessary. Without pictures in the book Persepolis, I feel I would not have comprehended it as well as I would have without pictures. This connects to other forms of visual media by television or movies. Some books are created into TV shows, or movies. This is really cool, because it shows how others pictured that particular scene. Also, you can either agree with the scene, saying you thought it would look like that, or you wouldn't like it, and think that they could have done better. Some authors do not use drawings because they expect that the reader should paint their own picture from the text. Most of the time you can. However, with more difficult novels, it's nice to have a picture, so you can fully comprehend what just happened. I understand the story better with pictures, with certain books. With those books, you could maybe paint the wrong picture, then be confused throughout the rest of the novel. Everyone comprehends text in different ways, they may interpret different than a friend.
Alanna Nagi
2nd hour
I think that drawings would be bad for for all books. This is because, i know when im reading, i like to visualize my own thoughts of what im reading rather than it have pictures. Although, for some books, it would have been better to have pictures. Like they said in the group discussion today, i think that Lord of the Flies would have been better with pictures. This is because some of the stuff said were difficult to understand without pictures. But, the main reason authors dont use pictures is to let the reader have an imagination and interpret things on their own. In some stories, like Persepolis i understood the story more with the pictures, but in most stories, i like to come up with my own images.
I think that drawings would be bad for all books. I think this because some books need to be left to your own interpurtation, like fictional books. It would take away from our imaginations. I do not know how this connects to other forms of visual media. I think that authors dont always use drawing in there novel because they want to leave some inturpertation to us. They want you to take your own view on the book instead of it being handed to us on a platter.I understand the story better when there are pictures because a lot of the time its hard for me to picture things in my head.
There was a very interesting debate going on today about rather or not drawings in books helped the reader better understand what was happening in the story. I believe that drawings/sketches etc. have their place in some books, and not in others. Marjane Satrapi excellent use of illustration in her book that gave the story much more meaning than the story could have ever had in plain text. In a way, this connect to moving images (television/movies). No one wants to "read" a movie - with the occasional picture/clip. Writing, in its own right, has become an art-form. It doesn't need pictures to supplement it. Most books are just word after word, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, cha . . . (Oh, okay, you understand). Books have this standard. Some stories (like Persepolis) are better, supplemented with images, while other stories have no need for them. I personally like the normal style of most books, but the images in Satrapi's book did make the book easier to read.
Drawings would be good for books because they help further portray the message the author wants itws readers to visualize. Drawings could be a bad thing because they limit the information necessary to help explain what can only be explained in text. When an author doesnt use images in their story, they expect their readers to be adults/mature. They expect the reader to be able to depect what the author is tryng to say and the tone of voice the writing is in. Whenever I read, its like a movie playing in my head. I visualize whats going on, and the way I see it. If what I was reading was based off something where I havent a single clue on what the topic is in the first place, pictures are something I would need.
deets
I thnk that havinf the drawings open my mind more and let me think about whats going on. When i was reading the book, seeing the drawings helped me get the story a lot better. I that if the book was written like othere books it would have been a llot harder to understand all things that were going on. Haveing the pictures answers the question that i always have while reading stories. And that what does it look like. The pictures in this story answered that for me. it gave me a visual of what was going on.
Books are a way of making your own adventure. I think that it is good, for Persepolis, to have pictures because it needs that definition to the story in order for it to connect more to the readers. Marji’s viewpoint is the importance of the story. She really wants to reach out to the reader and actually show them whet she saw. I think that so many people resort to watching TV because they just don’t want to read. Having visual images in books, like Persepolis, makes it easer for people to sit down and read a book. Usually, novelists are big readers themselves. Being a reader, I want to go on my own adventure and have my own visual imaging when I read a book. This is why I think novelist don’t put pictures in books. Reading is a way to explore your mind. In some cases it is nice to have pictures, some times it could be helpful to explain. Otherwise, I think that it is more of an art to imagine things when you read. It feels like, to me, that I am 5 again and imagining different circumstances that help you get inside of your own little world.
Lauren Beattie
3rd Hour
I think drawings can be good and bad. Like the comic book, you don't get all the details. But it does help us understand what is going on in the book better. It also shows expression more. Pictures are their so you don't have to use your imagination. So you know exactly want the author means. novelists don't use pictures so you can create your own character and use your imagination. I like to have my own imagination, and create my own images. For me it makes the reading better.
For this evening im going to do the first one. I think in a way drawings would be good for most books. At least the ones for teenagers or whatever. For me it makes it easier to understand whats going on, and i see a visual of how the author interperts it. I think authors dont use drawings on novels becuase its more of a high skill reading. i think reading with pictures is alot easier to understand. Its a better way to show how a story is going, by visual and writing.
I think drawings could be good for some books and bad for others. I guess it just depends on a persons book reference. This could connect to all forms of visual media in the sense that photos and videos aren't always good. For example, some people that can't handle gore or violence should not be watching news about a killer going rampad on a college campus. Some authors expect their novels to be so graphic that a reader should be able to paint what is going on in their head. For this particular story, I can understand it better with pictures.
I think drawings for all books would be very bad. Some books can not get away with a comic book layout. Most books need more information on the pages to get their point across. I think authors do not use drawings because they want you to imagine the story through your own eyes. They guide you with their words and the rest is up to your mind. The comic lay out is also childish. So authors want to attract a wide range audience, not just children. There expectations are that you can comprehend the book with out them drawing it out for you. I was very frustrated reading Persepolis, it gave me a headache with all the pictures. Im more of an imagine it myself kind of person. So the book was really not one of my favorite layouts, however was a very good book in general.
I think drawings for all books would be very bad. Some books can not get away with a comic book layout. Most books need more information on the pages to get their point across. I think authors do not use drawings because they want you to imagine the story through your own eyes. They guide you with their words and the rest is up to your mind. The comic lay out is also childish. So authors want to attract a wide range audience, not just children. There expectations are that you can comprehend the book with out them drawing it out for you. I was very frustrated reading Persepolis, it gave me a headache with all the pictures. Im more of an imagine it myself kind of person. So the book was really not one of my favorite layouts, however was a very good book in general.
Taylor Dieck
3rd hr.
I have chosen to answer the first of the two choices. I think the message the author is trying to convey should be the diciding factor on whether drawings are good or bad for books. For example, in Marjane's situation, she wanted to show how she learned about things when she grew up by reading comic versions of books. It connects to other forms of visual media because many books are made into movies. These movies are like the comics, in the fact that they sort of create the image in your head for you. I think authors often don't use drawings because they want people to create their own mental pictures of the setting and events. Readers won't be able to with drawings. I think this type of reading is a change of pace, and I think it was rather cool. It helps me to visualize otherwise confusing parts. I also think it is best to use your imagination in some instinses. It sort of depends on what the reading is and what they author is trying to convey.
Drawings can be both good and bad for books. It all depends on how the author intents for their work to be interpreted. If the author only wants the book to be seen in one way and one way only, then pictures would accomplish that. If the author wants to leave the reader to make their own judgments of what they think the setting and characters look like, then no pictures works best. When any 2 readers read the same book without pictures, it is almost indefinite that they will interpret the book in different ways. Another type of visual media that goes hand and hand with a lot of books is movies. Movies are just pictures in motion, so they really narrow the possibilities for different interpretations too. Some authors dont use drawings in their novels, simply for the reason that i stated before. They want to leave it to each and every reader to interpret the book in their own way. I believe that I actually do understand the storyline better when there are pictures, but i prefer when there isnt any, so i can think of my own in my head.
I think that drawings would be better for certain books than others. An example that Ty mentioned today that would be a great book to have drawings in is Lord of the Flies. I totally agree because some of the metaphors used in the book were a little hard to understand in my opinion. With drawings like the ones in Persepolis I feel like I would have been able to understand more of the elements in the story such as the details of the setting. I think the reason authors don't use drawings when writing novels is so the reader can use their own imagination to interpret the book. Sometimes when movies are made based on books I feel like it ruins the story for me. Twilight is an example of this. I don't feel like the movies were portrayed as well as the books were written. Now that there are mobies based off of the books I feel like the entire concept of Twilight has become "cheesy". For different types of novels I feel like I can picture and experience different things. As said in the discussing today, I would'nt want a book on the Holocaust with drawings because I feel like it would insult the meaning and make it harder to read.
Audrey
I feel that drawings for all books is not a good idea. I think that most of the time it depends on what type of story it is. I also think that whos reading the book also comes into play. The pictures helped to create a visual on what was happening. However, some readers like to create their own visuals. I think that this question could go either way depending on who you ask. I personally liked the book more because of the drawing because it kept me focused on the book. Others may disagree because they like to be more imaginative and create their own visuals.
Drawings can be good and bad for a book. Drawings can benefit a book in many ways. The quote speaks for its self, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Pictures can describe things that words can’t. I also believe pictures help the reader understand what is going on throughout the book. Pictures can also be a bad thing. Pictures don’t have description like words do. Words can describe something in depth unlike a picture. Authors don’t often use pictures because they don’t explain, in depth, as well as words would. I think I understand the book better because of the pictures but I also understand how people wouldn’t like pictures in a book.
Having all books done with drawings would be bad. I think that many books are made to push your mind and make you have to visualize descriptions. Although graphic novels help you understand the story better sometimes, I feel like more books are written so that it pushes you to a higher thinking level. You are almost forced to put yourself in the character's situation when looking at an image, whereas if you are reading words on a page, you have to force yourself to see something as the author saw it. This connects to other forms of visual media because when you see something, you are seeing it as the person who created the picture wants you to see it. Visual media usually tries to persuade you to think one way, to buy something, and so on. Authors do not use drawings for their novels when the expectation of the novel is to be more on a very mature or very serious topic. If the story needs to tell details of how the world appears, some authors can only show what something looks like with words, otherwise, the story would need bery detailed drawings. Even then, though, readers may miss a detail in the picture that the author wanted them to notice. I think that with most stories, I need to find my own images when reading. I feel like when I make my own images, I can relate better because the images are my own, yet came from the author's words. There are a few stories that I think are better for me to understand in this format, such as Persepolis, but for most books I like making images in my head.
Pictures in a book make everything easier to understand. You get a better concept of what is going on. pictures show more than words do. When you have pictures and words you actually get to see and read about what is going on. When your reading a novel with just words you really don't actually picture what it is talking about. When you have pictures it forces you to see whats going on. Someone books wouldn't really fit with pictures but a lot of them would have been better if there were pictures. I would rather read more books like this because with pictures it makes it more interesting and better to read.
I felt that seeing the drawings in this book helped really give you the perspective she was trying to present. By drawing this the author could use a simpler writing style in regards to how much detail is given. The author can actually put the reader directly in her shoes. The negative part about having drawings is the author doesn't give the reader a chance to imagine what he or she thinks is going on. This connects with visual media cause most the media we see today is presented on t.v. so you have a visual of what is going on. I also think that are generation has less ability of imagination because we are so materialistic and have to see and touch things to believe them. Authors challenge readers to make there own images through the description and information the author gives the reader. I understand the story better when using the images but fond it weird being given the images without being able to picture them in my head.
Taylor wattles
Why would drawings be good or bad for all books? How does this connect to other forms of visual media? Why do authors not use drawings for their novels in regards to the expectations of the reader? Do you get the story better or do you need to find your own images when reading?
I think that for some circumstances pictures portray the overall message. I think that sometimes its not needed to have a picture. I think that sometimes your personal vizualization of the description given is what counts. I tihnk that this also connects to the side of visual media with movies. This is showing how sometimes you want to switch the pictures into words. I think books and movies are totally different. IF you read a book, and then watch the movie on it, the book is better. I feel that some author look to write through words and not pictures. Its their passion to p,lay on words enough to paiont a picture in your head. I think for me images are not necessary. I can read a book and visualize on my own what the authoris trying to get across. Its a personal preference, and id chose no pictures.
Personally, i think the the drawings could be good or bad for a book. For this book in particular, i think that the visual media was good and helped alot. Most books that dont have pictures you are forced to make a picture in your mind and you may be perceiving things way different than they actually are. Thats why i think books with pictures help, then you have a better feel for whats going on, and you can see the pictures of whats truely happening. Some authors dont use pictures so readers can use their imaginations for whats going on in the novel. To me, the story was much easier to understand and comprehend with the drawings. It also made it easier to read, and i could picture what was going on through the drawings especially.
I think that drawings would be bad for all books. I think this becasue books that are from an adults prospective is in more detail and doesnt need pictures. I think that pictures in a novel are not needed, a few small pictures would be more appropriate for a novel other than a comic themes to it. I think authors dont use drawings because they take up more space then explaining. I think that in this story the pictures helped a lot.I understood the story better with pictures. I think sense this story was more quotes and sentances, it wouldnt of needed pictures. The pictures helped me understand what was oing on.
Jake F
John Kent
1-19-10
I think that having drawings would be good for all books. The only exception would be a horror book. A horror book is ware it would only be worse that anyone’s imagination. I think that most authors don’t have pictures in their books for several reasons. One is because they are writers not artists. Another is that it would be impractical for large books. J.K. Rowling would still be on her 4th book if it were a graphic novel. Another is that it would take forever to get a book done, though the reader would know what everything looked like and what not. I think that I get the story better with pictures because it would have been harder to reed it and imagine all of the pictures that happened in Marjane’s life.
I think drawings would be bad for all books. While some books wokr well in graphic novel form, others loose meaning. Some need the descriptive details. As far as visual media goes, they work well as advertisements. People will respond better to a produst if they can see what it does, not just hear about it. Authors dont use drawings to please the reader because they want the reader to see it how they saw it, not how the reader imagines it. I think i understand what the author was trying to show better but sometimes i like being able to ass to the story on my own.
I think images would be good for some books, but a lot. That way, you know what the author was trying to get across to its readers. Some authors don't use drawings because they expect their readers to use their imagination and create the drawing themself. An author writes a novel with the intentions of someone imagining what things would look like. I like the whole graphic novel thing, it made Marjane's story better to understand. But no, I wouldn't want all the books I read to be graphic novels. I prefer to make the pictures myself because then I have a better undertstanding because I have to think about it harder. It makes me use my inagination, and view things how I chose, as apposed to only viewing them one way. Marjane's drawing made the revolution easier to understand with the pictures, but I don't think drawings would work for all books.
Sam Tedder
If the story was written by a child who was raised fundamentalist, it would be very different. In fact, it would just about be the opposite. All of Marji's personal opinions were based in a modern light. If Marji's family was fundamentalist then she would create Iran through judgements that make it look like the country is heading in the right direction with all the use of religion as a political tool. A fundamentalist child would look down upon those like Marji and her family, who protest the forced religion. They would support the uprising and the government in Iran. This is much different as compared to Marji who was raised to be a modern women and to follow her dreams.
I dont think that drawings in all books would be good. In some stories it really helps, but in others there is really no point. This kind of connects to other forms of visual media because they are pretty much the same thing, just in different forms. I think that authors dont use drawings because they dont give that much detail. Also, I think they dont use them because they want you to figure things out on your own. Showing drawings can kind of give a wrong opinion on something. So, I think they want you to think deep into the story and be able to figure out what the story is about without them giving it away in drawings. When im reading I like to imagine what is going on, and like try to pretend like that is happening to me. I usually like to find my own images.
Katlin Gotshaw
3rd Hour.
I personally think drawings would be good if they were in all books. They are easier to follow most of the time, and less time consuming. When a book is just full of words it doesn't look appealing to me. With some books i can create my own images, but with most books, usually boring, i find myself not wanting to read it because of the lack of pictures. I get confused on what is happening. Like the book we just read. If their were no pictures, just more descriptions i probably wouldn't have read it in the time i had. I feel like for people who are more visual like books with pictures because it helps them understand more of whats going on. When you're reading a novel you expect all words and no pictures. Novelist's are usually good with describing something and giving you a visual of that thing with words rather than with pictures.
my internet was being very slow yesterday. and it wouldn't let me publish the comment.
I think the drawings make a book alot more interesting and easier to understand. This is the first book ive read that i actually wanted to read at home, and find out what actually happened, so to me the pictures are a huge plus. I dont think drawings would be the best for all books though, some books have more explicit material and might be offensive if the drawings were included, And some stories are more about a critical and abstract thinking, which could throw readers off with pictures. The picture books connect to more visual media like movies and plays, which make u feel more in the story, instead of traditional books, where you have to imagine your own story. And i think most authors use traditional text because they expect readers to visualize the story portrayed as its written in the book. Thats what i find to be more difficult when trying to understand a book.
My computer has been down.
Drawing would be better for most books in my opinion. I think this because if describes things that you can't describe in words. Drawings change the complete mood of the book. Authors usually don't use drawings in their books because it comes across as childish to many people. The reader may expect the book to be not as good or mature as a novel without pictures. I personally get the story a lot better when there are pictures. With pictures you get to see how the writer wanted you to see it.
Post a Comment