Each of the essays included in the book, which i have not read, have no relation in them except that they use the Prownian Method in their analysis. Aside from the "What is a Machete Anyways?" article by John Cline, I also read an blog post by Greg Cotter who used the Prownian Method to analyse a legal pad. I found the post to be really helpful to see it used in a school type setting and enjoyed reading it.

As much as i would usually want to argue with claims like this i whole heartedly agree. Each step draws from the previous one to form the next one. It really is the logical step of object-analysis. One cannot deduce the use of an object until it has been described, and one cannot begin to speculate the significance of the object until we know what it does.

A form of analysis created by Yale professor, Jules Prown. Prownian Analysis is the first step in the larger process known as the Prownian Method. In this method the author will almost obssively describe the object, deduce all that they may from it such as dating, speculate as to the use of the object during it's time and what the objects signifigance was, research as to the actual historical properties of the object, and then finally interpretive analysis. Interpretive analysis is the final step in the process that sort of combines all of the previous step but then uses them to further your analysis such as "i think it was used for this" but then it served a different purpose, and you would examine why that was and reconcile that two ideas.

I'm not sure if i entirely understand what Haltman means about this. If a writer is speculating into the signifigance of an object, he should remain unbiased when researching the object. For example, if he finds evidence to contrary of his propositions, he should not neglect to use the evidence, but rather let the idea move the topic of discussion towards something else and follow it. John Cline does this in "What is a Machete Anyways?" in which he proposes a certain signifigance for the machete, it being a familiar, unfrightening tool that he was raised around in Iowa. But then, when examining the cultural significance of the object as a tool of genocide, he supports his claim that the machete has, for a long time, been a common tool among poorer indigenous workers in third world countries, and that this is why it was so commonly used in revolts.

When describing an object one must draw forth details about an object that make it clear what an object represents. In doing so, the author will give a broad description of the object and then move in to focus on specific details about the object in a way that leads the reader towards the same implications that you are going to make. For example, if one were to take an object such as a campfire, one might describe it as: It's an array of burning logs inside a pit, bordered by rocks to keep the sparks out. The logs are hot and they are dangerous, but they also keep the people around the fire warm. The logs cook the peoples food to make it edible, so that may eat it. The fire provides a sense of communal living for the people that might not exist otherwise. Had we not had something like fire many millions of years ago, maybe we would not have come together to live as a community. Thus, as one moves away from the dangers of fire, one can lead the reader towards signifigance of a campfire as a symbol of communal living, and a precursor to society.

While i must admit that i don't really understand what this means by itself, it seems to me that from the provided list, the most obvious and powerful significations of an object are these polar metaphors, such as light vs dark, life vs dark. These same instance of polarity can be seen in Cline's "What is a Machete Anyways?" in which machete bear this polar significance within the indigenous and third world communities as both a tool of liberation from oppression and fascist genocide.

In John Cline's "What is a Machete Anyways?" analyze the historical use of a machete throughout the world. He argues that throughout most of the colonized third world countries, most of the indigenous workers found worked in agriculture such as sugar plantations in Brazil, banana farms in Jamaica. Almost all of these people had two things in common: they owned and used a machete on a daily basis, making it an extremely common tool, and they faced constant oppression. Once the oppressed revolt and overthrow the oppressor, as they always do, they found themselves arming themselves with the most common tool they could find, the machete.

Though i think i understand what he is saying, I'm not sure if i entirely disagree or don't entirely understand. For example, an object like a machete might not take much, if any, creativity to speculate the use of it. The reason why the machete was used for many violent revolts in third world countries was because it was a common tool used by colonized farmers and workers. These were tools most people had among them in their house hold and thus it made the most sense to use them in times of war. To "speculate" the use of the machete in this case wouldn't take much creativity because it is something i think that is well documented by historians. Maybe those historians had to use creativity to come to this conclusion, but even then i would argue that one could find proof of the machete's commonality in journals or interviews.

This sort of comes back to what was previosly stated, "Writing constitutes analysis" Once on has an objective analysis of an object, with a richly detailed account for all of its aspects, one can move on to draw further details from it such as symbolism, and signifigance. And in doing so, we will narrow down our focus to specific details of the object. In Cline's "What is a Machete Anyways?" Cline describes the machete used in much of South America, but then once talking about Rwanda, he moves away from things like physical composition, and focuses more on details like "sharp edge" because he is reinforcing the use of the object as a tool of violence.

This was mentioned earlier in the text. Because description are verbal or written, they are described using words. In order to analyze words we must first have a description of an object. From there, one is able to draw conclusions and analysis.