- What was the main idea of the article? The main idea of the article is that electronic readers can enhance the joy of reading experience by making it possible for millions of readers to share their marginalia online.
- What was your opinion of the article? I'm impressed with the author's insight that marginalia-sharing will thrive again thanks to the development of technology and that it will give us more extraordinary experience than what people in the 18th century experienced from marginalia-sharing. Probably someone might have already written the same thing, but what we are doing right now is exactly what the author hopes for, sharing ideas about the same text with many others online. I find it wonderful and enjoyable. It also makes me read and learn more than when I read and learn alone. (If I may go further, the author's idea reminded me of a fantasy written in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari: all human consciences combined with AI and fused into an entity of unknown state of intelligence .)
- Was there any part of the article you didn't understand? I didn't really get the feel of the expression "roll around in the text" Is it talking about enjoying reading as if the person is playfully rolling around the floor with a pet dog or something? Or is it that the author wants marginalia shared online to make the reader crack up and figuratively roll around in the text? Well, it seems so.
- Was there any part of the article you disagreed with? In some cases, the plastic strips for marginalia-sharing in the eighth paragraph, the gadget*s* the author daydreams about after his friend's positive response to sharing his marginalia, would be better than the public note*-*sharing function for Kindle because it is more personal and intimate.
- Did you take notes on the article? How did your note-taking confirm (or not confirm) the main idea of the reading? Yes, I took notes on the article after underlining main ideas. Because I was able to see the written notes, that is, main ideas of the paragraphs**put in my own words, I was able to confirm the main idea **of the whole text more easily and clearly than when I depend only on underlined text.
Parts in bold letters are parts I revised after I read comments.
2. What was your opinion of the article? I'm impressed with the author's insight that marginalia-sharing will thrive again thanks to the development of technology and that it will give us more extraordinary experience than what people in the 18th century experienced from marginalia-sharing. Probably someone might have already written the same thing, but what we are doing right now is exactly what the author hopes for, sharing ideas about the same text with many others online. I find it wonderful and enjoyable. It also makes me read and learn more than when I read and learn alone. (If I may go further, the author's idea reminded me of the future human intelligence hooked up to computer in which all human consciousness is combined with AI and fused into an entity of unknown state of intelligence written in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari.)
3. Was there any part of the article you didn't understand? I didn't really get the feel of the expression "roll around in the text" Is it talking about enjoying reading as if the person is playfully rolling around the floor with a pet dog or something? Or is it that the author wants marginalia shared online to make the reader crack up and figuratively roll around in the text? Well, it seems so.
4. Was there any part of the article you disagreed with? In some cases, the plastic strips for marginalia-sharing in the eighth paragraph, the gadget the author daydreams after his friend's positive response to sharing his marginalia, would be better than public note sharing function for Kindle because it is more personal and intimate.
5. Did you take notes on the article? How did your note-taking confirm (or not confirm) the main idea of the reading? Yes, I took notes on the article after underlining main ideas. Because I was able to see the written notes, that is, main ideas put in my own words, I was able to confirm the main idea more easily and clearly than when I depend only on underlined text.
My friend drives a car so smoothly that her friend sitting in the backseat with her eyes closed seldom notices when the car takes a turn or stops.
This post is visible to everyone.
1 response
- That is really smooth... more hyperbolic than specific, maybe?
- Thank you GullemVaquer. You really make me learn. Well, I have suspected that I tend to exaggerate things, sometimes almost to the point of a lie. Well, this one is almost true, but not exactly. Does using "seldom" or "almost never" instead of "never" make the sentence less hyperbolic? (Never say never. Is that it?) I guess "hardly" instead of "never" makes the sentence better.posted about a month ago by NorikoSasaki
- Your precise and specific revision is good. I believe your sentence is more powerful without the asterisks. Good luck.posted about a month ago by mindrun2
- Thank you, mindrun2!posted about a month ago by NorikoSasaki
- I'm learning from your comments. Thanksposted about a month ago by Josefcogra
- You're welcome. I'm glad to be of help. Thank you, too, Josefcogra!posted about a month ago by NorikoSasaki
