I hit character 951, 人, and it baffles me. Heisig really surprised me with this:
"The primitive meaning is another matter. The abstract notion of person so often has a relation to the meaning of the kanji that confusion readily sets in. So many of the previous stories have included people in them that simply to use person for a primitive meaning would be risky. We need to be more specific, to focus on one particular person. Try to choose someone who has not figured in the stories so far, perhaps a colorful member of the family or a friend whom you have known for a long time. That individual will appear again and again, so be sure to choose someone who excites your imagination."
The first thing I thought was, Why now?
Throughout the book so far Heisig assigns some primative meanings that are completely random, for example Brain as 田. I do not understand why throughout the book he choses a lot of primative meanings that have some relevence to the character. Sure, it's easier to learn the alternative primative meaning if it has some resemblence to the kanji you are using, such as 兆 Portent which looks "kind of like a turtle", but you only have to learn that once, whereas stories that contain turtle are numerous. It results in a brute memorisation method to learn these, which it that is the opposite of what the book is trying to achieve. Why not make a story to assign the alternative primative meaning to a keyword? I do not know. Some of the primatives are shocking, I am sure everyone has struggled with some that just don't fit, I think the fact I changed well over 20 of them is a testament to that fact.
But the above passage just shocks me. Why only bother to create a colourful primative of your own imagination now? What he says is a great idea and makes perfect sense, to choose someone or something colourful and image invoking as a primative, but why now? The only reason is because the keyword is Person.
We already established you can link anything to anything via a story, the whole book is made upon that, but it seems so shallow to then choose primatives based on a direct visual link to the kanji they come from, to force them in via memorisation. It seriously limits your choice of alternate primative meaning if you can only choose something that looks a bit like what's there.
To help break the programming of people picking up this book that brute memorisation is not the key, I think Heisig should have printed what I pasted above after about the first 30 kanji. It would reinforce that you don't need to use his primatives, and you don't need to force memorise the primatives either. I guess this was the final part in breaking the hold on my mind. I realise I can use my own stories with this site, and I even realised creating my own alternative primatives out of people was great, but it's only after reading that passage that I realise I can ignore primatives that I think would suck for stories and replace them entirely.
Take for example Claw, he gives it a related alternate primative meaning of "Vulture". I gave it the alternate meaning of "Kitten", because kittens have claws too. Only after the realisation of this post would I have thought of giving it something completely arbitrary such as "Hair dryer".
His finger primative gave me so many problems, but it didn't really occur to me to give it a completely different meaning like "Lunch Box" for example. It doesn't look like a lunch box so Heisig would never have assigned it himself, but I can make a story for fingers>lunch box if I wanted to, admit to brute memorisation anyway rather than trying to see a pattern in the kanji that makes it look like what it is (does fingers really look like fingers?) in an attempt to deny it, or even try to make Fingers look like a lunch box handle or something.
A lot of people gave it fingers the thief, to tie it in with fingers. But why bother tying it in with fingers? The only reason is if you want to use fingers in some stories instead of your thief persona. But then you could tie as many alternate meanings as you want in, so that doesn't make a lot of sense either. Think outside the box and you could call it something completely different, change fingers too if you like.
Bottom line, anyone else surprised by this? Why does it have to be the Person 人 kanji that gets its own colourful person primative? Something like 10 of my primatives so far have been colourful people (Jack the Ripper, Captain Hook, Richard the Lionheart, Iron Chef, Austin Powers, Gladiator, a Cleric, a Paladin... plus more I forget).
From now on I will completely choose my own primatives, completely ignoring what the primative looks like.
In fact, the book might be better if it had a list of 200 memorable ideas for primatives that people on this website were able to make great stories with. My cleric stories worked great for me, and so did Medusa, Cyclops and some others. Some didn't work as well. You could just scan the list and assign those that stand out to you completely randomly to primatives inside the book.
This site would be less about sharing stories and more community based requests for help, although the system of storing your stories and memorisation could remain the same.
Anyway, the point is to make you think! Realise sooner that keywords are just tools, it doesn't matter what they say, just that they are memorable. Everyone doing the book knows this, but they don't know they know it.
"The primitive meaning is another matter. The abstract notion of person so often has a relation to the meaning of the kanji that confusion readily sets in. So many of the previous stories have included people in them that simply to use person for a primitive meaning would be risky. We need to be more specific, to focus on one particular person. Try to choose someone who has not figured in the stories so far, perhaps a colorful member of the family or a friend whom you have known for a long time. That individual will appear again and again, so be sure to choose someone who excites your imagination."
The first thing I thought was, Why now?
Throughout the book so far Heisig assigns some primative meanings that are completely random, for example Brain as 田. I do not understand why throughout the book he choses a lot of primative meanings that have some relevence to the character. Sure, it's easier to learn the alternative primative meaning if it has some resemblence to the kanji you are using, such as 兆 Portent which looks "kind of like a turtle", but you only have to learn that once, whereas stories that contain turtle are numerous. It results in a brute memorisation method to learn these, which it that is the opposite of what the book is trying to achieve. Why not make a story to assign the alternative primative meaning to a keyword? I do not know. Some of the primatives are shocking, I am sure everyone has struggled with some that just don't fit, I think the fact I changed well over 20 of them is a testament to that fact.
But the above passage just shocks me. Why only bother to create a colourful primative of your own imagination now? What he says is a great idea and makes perfect sense, to choose someone or something colourful and image invoking as a primative, but why now? The only reason is because the keyword is Person.
We already established you can link anything to anything via a story, the whole book is made upon that, but it seems so shallow to then choose primatives based on a direct visual link to the kanji they come from, to force them in via memorisation. It seriously limits your choice of alternate primative meaning if you can only choose something that looks a bit like what's there.
To help break the programming of people picking up this book that brute memorisation is not the key, I think Heisig should have printed what I pasted above after about the first 30 kanji. It would reinforce that you don't need to use his primatives, and you don't need to force memorise the primatives either. I guess this was the final part in breaking the hold on my mind. I realise I can use my own stories with this site, and I even realised creating my own alternative primatives out of people was great, but it's only after reading that passage that I realise I can ignore primatives that I think would suck for stories and replace them entirely.
Take for example Claw, he gives it a related alternate primative meaning of "Vulture". I gave it the alternate meaning of "Kitten", because kittens have claws too. Only after the realisation of this post would I have thought of giving it something completely arbitrary such as "Hair dryer".
His finger primative gave me so many problems, but it didn't really occur to me to give it a completely different meaning like "Lunch Box" for example. It doesn't look like a lunch box so Heisig would never have assigned it himself, but I can make a story for fingers>lunch box if I wanted to, admit to brute memorisation anyway rather than trying to see a pattern in the kanji that makes it look like what it is (does fingers really look like fingers?) in an attempt to deny it, or even try to make Fingers look like a lunch box handle or something.
A lot of people gave it fingers the thief, to tie it in with fingers. But why bother tying it in with fingers? The only reason is if you want to use fingers in some stories instead of your thief persona. But then you could tie as many alternate meanings as you want in, so that doesn't make a lot of sense either. Think outside the box and you could call it something completely different, change fingers too if you like.
Bottom line, anyone else surprised by this? Why does it have to be the Person 人 kanji that gets its own colourful person primative? Something like 10 of my primatives so far have been colourful people (Jack the Ripper, Captain Hook, Richard the Lionheart, Iron Chef, Austin Powers, Gladiator, a Cleric, a Paladin... plus more I forget).
From now on I will completely choose my own primatives, completely ignoring what the primative looks like.
In fact, the book might be better if it had a list of 200 memorable ideas for primatives that people on this website were able to make great stories with. My cleric stories worked great for me, and so did Medusa, Cyclops and some others. Some didn't work as well. You could just scan the list and assign those that stand out to you completely randomly to primatives inside the book.
This site would be less about sharing stories and more community based requests for help, although the system of storing your stories and memorisation could remain the same.
Anyway, the point is to make you think! Realise sooner that keywords are just tools, it doesn't matter what they say, just that they are memorable. Everyone doing the book knows this, but they don't know they know it.
Edited: 2008-07-20, 3:30 am
