After rereading “See Through Words” by Michael Erard, I feel that my overall view and ideas about Errands writing remained the same. The second time reading through the passage I felt like my understanding was greater and some of Erard’s connections and analogies made more sense. I also found that glossing the text to discover the meaning of words I was not as familiar with such as provocations or psycholinguistic helped to improve my understanding. However, I still feel that my view on metaphors and Erard’s views differ. I felt that Erard could have provided the read with a more solid base of what he was explaining, by using more clarifying words or providing the reader with a definition of some of the tactics he used to form his metaphors. For example where he references using furniture to enhance the readers view of that metaphor, I feel like he does an okay job of expressing how he uses the furniture, but does not give a clear definition of what furniture is, as a reader I just assumed it was supporting details. I also feel that Erard’s writing jumps from one idea to the next and that the passage did not give the reader much of a chance to form their own opinions and thoughts about what he was saying. I feel this is also true about his process of writing metaphors, I personally think that Erard’s method eliminates any chance of individuality and originality of a metaphor. I also think that forming metaphors by making pseudo-mistakes and testing it on users to gain a desired response is not what makes a metaphor great. I think what makes a metaphor significant is the idea that every individual person can connect and form their on thought about that metaphor. Just as Tom Boyce’s metaphor comparing children to flowers was thought to be successful even thought it had never been tested with users. Overall, I do not think that Micheal Erard is a bad writer, as this is the only piece of his work I have read and I have not seen any of his metaphors. I just think that my ideas of a metaphors differs for Erard’s and that my original thoughts about the passage still remain.