The supplementary reading that I chose is "The Secret to Good Writing: It's About Objects, Not Ideas" by John Maguire. In the reading Maguire argues that many students today struggle with writing. He claims that students have trouble with being clearly and he says the way to solve this is through giving specific concrete examples. And the way to do this is through writing about physical objects.

Throughout the reading, Maguire states that students are too caught up in trying to write about abstract ideas that they have in their heads. He says that abstract writing leads to vague and unclear writing and this is why students struggle with writing. He tells his students that instead of writing abstractly, they should just write using "things they can drop on their feet" in order to write more clearly. Maguire uses this method since it is easy for students to write about concrete objects and that every student can do it. I agree with what he says in the article since I also had struggles with writing. I think that his tips would help me to portray what I am trying to write more clearly.

However, while looking at this passage I disagree with some of it, because I think that some of our writing should contain our abstract ideas and feelings. If we are able to write out these things in a concise manner, I believe that it adds emotion and power to our writing. If we only are describing objects throughout our whole writing, it can become boring and mundane. However if we are able to have a good balance between using abstract ideas and concrete description, our writing will improve greatly.

Maguire, John. “The Secret to Good Writing: It's About Objects, Not Ideas.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 2 Oct. 2012, www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-secret-to-good-writing-its-about-objects-not-ideas/263113/.

The more we write and learn about the object, the more we become free to connect with the object in a relational way. We get to focus in on how the object makes us feel and how it makes us think. It is important to not just have a narrow mindset but to really think about how the object relates to us. I think that this is an important step in analyzing objects.

In the supplemental reading Maguire talks about using physical objects to help us write and form clearer observations ,I think that relates to this statement. Through writing about the object it forces us to think deeper and from it comes deeper analysis.

While studying of material culture may start in the tangible realm, only through careful studying and interpreting beyond just the physical aspects does the object's true significance appear and open up. I think that this is a clear contrast with what Maguire states. He emphasizes the importance of the physical object while writing, on the other hand, Prownian analysis emphasizes that the physical object is just the basis for deeper and more abstract interpretation.

While it is important to make sure to observe all the little details of the object to gain more knowledge about the object, it is also important to look at the bigger picture to understand the object in its totality. I think that this is an important theme in studying material culture, since such a big part of material culture is understanding the big picture of the object.

This is almost the complete opposite of what Maguire believes. This emphasizes using non-physical and abstract ideas to find meaning, whereas Maguire writes about using concrete ideas. I find it interesting how some parts of this essay totally matches with what Maguire writes, while statements such as this are completely different.

This statement has a sharp parallel with what Maguire is writing about. Maguire strongly emphasizes the point to not use vague writing. I think that the statement "just describe what you see" is a big point that Maguire is trying to make in that you don't always have to come up with these creative and abstract ideas. Sometimes, you can just write about the simple things.

Prownian analysis is a means of identifying, analyzing, and categorizing historical objects. Essentially it has 3 steps:

1. Obsessively describe: Endeavor to analyze every aspect of the object in question. Nothing it considered too obvious. Create a rolling list of said aspects for future reference.
2. Guess at use: While analyzing the object, assume potential uses for it. It’s intended purpose may be easily noticeable, but alternative uses are also worth investigating. Again, make a rolling list for future reference.
3. Treat the object as fiction: Act as though the object in question does not truly exist. Paint as vivid a mental picture as possible of the object and relate it to basic, universal concepts. Catalog these metaphors, similes and likenesses (or contrasts).

(https://mnmalone.wordpress.com/prownian-analysis/)

I think that this comic is a good example of how important having a rich vocabulary is. If all we do is just add in big words without know what they mean, it can make our writing look like a big mess and it will lose clarity. This is supported by Maguire as he tells his students to not just put in words like "market" or "productivity", but to explain those words and describe them with concrete and vivid words.

http://www.magartsblog.net/bad-comics-learning-from-the-worst/

This method works because it is so easy for us to just describe something. This relates with what Maguire writes about as he tells his students to just describe physical objects. I think that he teaches this technique because it's simple for students to use.

When we formalize our observation on the objects, we have to be diligent in writing the description as it can be a key part to opening up new ideas and realizations.

This kind of deduction has happened so much and so quickly that it has become natural to us and we may even see such deductions as common sense. This may cause us to skim over some things but we have to remember to slow down and think deeper.