Your reservations around the 'super hero' approach are justified - and it's a conversation I've had with a number of your classmates too; the point about superheroes is that they must look like superheroes, which means they must conform to an existing archetype, and while archetypes can be deployed wittingly to good effect, I can't help thinking that this brief is about a more speculative outcome. So, your most recent developments in which you boldly use the shell to 'obliterate the biped' is a welcome push into more exploratory territory. That said, you're still very attached to the torso and now you run the risk of entering into another Unit 1 cul-de-sac - the 'centaur' approach, which, far from truly hybridising two components, actually keeps them nicely separate. You need to be even bolder still, Steve. Obviously, the shell of the nautilus protects its soft-body, so all the thinking you've done around the armour idea is valuable, but I suggest you start thinking a bit more 'asymmetrically' about your fusion - or not. What I mean is, if you make the decision that your hybrid would be stable - so that somekind of segmented exterior would develop around you to protect your suddenly 'bone-less' self, then perhaps you should also be looking prawns; but if your fusion is much less homogenous, then maybe the shell is like your 'ball and chain' - this massive weight that you've had to manage, I don't know, by putting it on wheels, so that you don't have to drag its weight around. If you've got this huge weight to support, then you're muscles would have enlarged around your shoulders and on your legs as a result. There is a cause and effect model here that extends from you asking the question 'what if' - and it can be as prosaic, as what if I didn't have any bones in my legs, how would I get around? You might be part-Nautilus, part vehicle...
Okay - your written assignment needs much greater focus if it's not going to result in academic blancmange: the 'Symbiote' represents, in basic terms, a mechanism that prompts the battle between human 'civilised' will and the urge to give in to more base desires. In this sense, a discussion of the symbiote, is the discussion of something more universal, something played out in the Beauty and the Beast paradigm. I can't help feeling that it would serve you better if you dealt with the meat and potatoes of this established narrative first, and used the symbiote as simply an 'update' of an established theme, evidence of the enduring popularity of the idea and its constant reinvention. I suggest you re-approach your introduction and re-post @Phil when you've identified its theoretical bone-structure more clearly.
thanks phil, loving the idea of dragging the weight around, like some form of undersea caravan. i'll be drafting up some alternative ideas during the week, taking this all into account.
OGR 03/10/11
ReplyDeleteMorning Steve,
Your reservations around the 'super hero' approach are justified - and it's a conversation I've had with a number of your classmates too; the point about superheroes is that they must look like superheroes, which means they must conform to an existing archetype, and while archetypes can be deployed wittingly to good effect, I can't help thinking that this brief is about a more speculative outcome. So, your most recent developments in which you boldly use the shell to 'obliterate the biped' is a welcome push into more exploratory territory. That said, you're still very attached to the torso and now you run the risk of entering into another Unit 1 cul-de-sac - the 'centaur' approach, which, far from truly hybridising two components, actually keeps them nicely separate. You need to be even bolder still, Steve. Obviously, the shell of the nautilus protects its soft-body, so all the thinking you've done around the armour idea is valuable, but I suggest you start thinking a bit more 'asymmetrically' about your fusion - or not. What I mean is, if you make the decision that your hybrid would be stable - so that somekind of segmented exterior would develop around you to protect your suddenly 'bone-less' self, then perhaps you should also be looking prawns; but if your fusion is much less homogenous, then maybe the shell is like your 'ball and chain' - this massive weight that you've had to manage, I don't know, by putting it on wheels, so that you don't have to drag its weight around. If you've got this huge weight to support, then you're muscles would have enlarged around your shoulders and on your legs as a result. There is a cause and effect model here that extends from you asking the question 'what if' - and it can be as prosaic, as what if I didn't have any bones in my legs, how would I get around? You might be part-Nautilus, part vehicle...
Okay - your written assignment needs much greater focus if it's not going to result in academic blancmange: the 'Symbiote' represents, in basic terms, a mechanism that prompts the battle between human 'civilised' will and the urge to give in to more base desires. In this sense, a discussion of the symbiote, is the discussion of something more universal, something played out in the Beauty and the Beast paradigm. I can't help feeling that it would serve you better if you dealt with the meat and potatoes of this established narrative first, and used the symbiote as simply an 'update' of an established theme, evidence of the enduring popularity of the idea and its constant reinvention. I suggest you re-approach your introduction and re-post @Phil when you've identified its theoretical bone-structure more clearly.
thanks phil, loving the idea of dragging the weight around, like some form of undersea caravan. i'll be drafting up some alternative ideas during the week, taking this all into account.
ReplyDeletethanks again!