KLPNO
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Hello everyone,
From the book Psychology of hope by Charles Snyder.
The author continues to talk about how he went fishing with his Grandpa Gus.
Gus tried many different ways to catch fish. Opening his battered aluminum tackle box, he looked over trays revealed every lure and bait imaginable. And he would use most of them. The menu of live baits included such delicacies as worms, leeches, grasshoppers, and minnows. We would fish in shallow water, in deep water, beside weed beds, near docks, in open water, on and on. We might anchor and still fish, cast, drift, or troll. He would teach me to move my rod tip in different ways. Sometimes we would fish in the morning, sometimes at night. Gus was an experimenter willing to try new things. He said that much of the fun and excitement came from changing how we fished.
Now here was a guy who saw fishing as a challenge, not as a failure waiting to happen. Gus was a model of hope. This lesson happened to be in the context of fishing, but the basic high-hope message was the same across situations: Set clear goals and then get energized about ways to reach those objectives.
If we say "He was a guy who saw fishing as..." or "It was a guy who saw..." instead of "Now here was a guy who saw..." would the general meaning of the sentence be the same?
If not, what does the use of "Now here was" add to the meaning of the sentence?
From the book Psychology of hope by Charles Snyder.
The author continues to talk about how he went fishing with his Grandpa Gus.
Gus tried many different ways to catch fish. Opening his battered aluminum tackle box, he looked over trays revealed every lure and bait imaginable. And he would use most of them. The menu of live baits included such delicacies as worms, leeches, grasshoppers, and minnows. We would fish in shallow water, in deep water, beside weed beds, near docks, in open water, on and on. We might anchor and still fish, cast, drift, or troll. He would teach me to move my rod tip in different ways. Sometimes we would fish in the morning, sometimes at night. Gus was an experimenter willing to try new things. He said that much of the fun and excitement came from changing how we fished.
Now here was a guy who saw fishing as a challenge, not as a failure waiting to happen. Gus was a model of hope. This lesson happened to be in the context of fishing, but the basic high-hope message was the same across situations: Set clear goals and then get energized about ways to reach those objectives.
If we say "He was a guy who saw fishing as..." or "It was a guy who saw..." instead of "Now here was a guy who saw..." would the general meaning of the sentence be the same?
If not, what does the use of "Now here was" add to the meaning of the sentence?
