The Choragus’s unbiased suggestions and wise tactics added dramatic irony to the story. If the Choragus was not a character in the plot, I feel that the dramatic irony would have been less effective. Along with the chorus, the Choragus is like a sports commentator: he describes events and is an expert of a certain topic. The Choragus adds dramatic irony because he reveals information that helps the audience understand a few situations between other characters. He also ties loose ends.
He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story. The plot of the story itself is a piece of situational irony, however there are many other instances found throughout it, including verbal irony. One specific example of this is when Hazel and George are talking, Vonnegut writes “ ‘I think I’d make a good Handicapper General. (Hazel)’ ‘Good as anybody else,’ said George.” His response to Hazel’s comment is slightly sarcastic, but also ironic, in that she really would be “as good anybody else” because in their society everyone is just as good or bad as everybody else. Another example of this false sense of equality is when George says,
Obviously the piece of cloth is more to some people and perhaps it symbolises people uniting together. Also in ‘Flag’ he mentions ‘that makes the guts of men grow bold’. This is quite a horrible piece of imagery in your mind as the connations of ‘guts’ is very dark and evil. He could of used ‘heart’ but it gives the feel of the sentence a more positive flow, which the writer does not
No one true resource can be used without doubt coming from it because of the greed of the Spaniards or the sympathy of scholars for the Mayans that might have been used in the sources. The “confusion of tongues” then can not only come from the actual misinterpretation of the languages, but from the classes, genders and religion aspects as well. This book was a really interesting read from a historian point of view even with the author sometimes making it clear she favors one side over the other. Even with that in mind, she does bring across to the reader the problems from the beginning the Spaniards had with this particular area to conquer, unlike Mexico, Peru and other places in the Caribbean. It all eventually became the same, disease killing off the natives, Spaniards using slaves and mixing of castes with them taking native wives, and how the indigenous people tried to cling onto their beliefs and ways even knowing the harsh punishments that would come to them if found out.
Sedaris also uses hyperboles to enhance the humor and drama in his writings. One instance of hyperbole is in “Go Carolina,” when he states, “the word therapy suggested a profound failure on my part.” Obviously, he is exaggerating the fact that therapy was a “profound failure,” adding to his intended drama. Also, in “In the Waiting Room,” when he is describing his experience, it is an exaggeration to have the thought of suicide at the moment. But the use of hyperboles in this case works, because the exaggeration of certain things provides comedy for the reader. Sedaris also makes use of rhetorical questioning.
According to Aaron (2007) in the The Little, Brown Compact Handbook, the word “plagiarism” is derived from a Latin word meaning to kidnap or to abduct (p. 424). Plagiarism is stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as one’s own. In many other cultures, plagiarizing is encouraged because it demonstrates familiarity and respect for the work of noted writers. However, in the United States and at Columbia Southern University, plagiarism is considered fraud and can have serious consequences. Plagiarism usually comes in two forms: intentional and unintentional.
From this, the morally sound character, Stan, tells the audience that stereotyping people is wrong, but it is also good to be cautious of certain things. This doesn’t just appeal to one argument; it takes both viewpoints and acknowledges each one as if both are equally important. This kind of show plays a big impact on our lives because it teaches us how to be a better person. I myself have learned much from South Park, and each time a reminder is needed I just look back and have myself a nice laugh or
Though showing a clear form of favortism to Spain, the article does include some information about the opposing side and attempts to bring everything together by somewhat equaling/ conforming the two stances at the end "Either story is improbable, and the true explanation of the occurrence may be summed up in the fact that the natives, black and white, hate and execrate the Spaniards, and that the feeling is mutual" (Troubles at Porto Rico).Where as, the Los Diez Mandamientos de Hombres Libres being a historical document with much importance, is undoubtedly in the favor of the Puerto Rican people and is more successful at pushing for/motivating/forcing the reader to look into additional research. With this, I do not mean to bash Betances, he was very much involved in the fight for freedom of the Puerto Ricans, but when evaluating the two documents in regards to which one provides the reader with a better/more attainable understanding his does seem more
This once again proved that steroids have a negative effect on the athlete's although they do improve the athlete's performance. Would you take something that was hurting and possibly killing your body just so that you could be the best in a specific sport? Some of the men that were involved in the study had to quit it because they were worried that the steroids were going to potentially ruin their bodies for the rest of their lives. That is evidence that anabolic steroids should remain illegal and can be used effectively in my argumentative
Contraversial Speakers Allowed on College Campuses Many controversial speakers are wrongfully perceived as hazards to many communities, when in fact, they should be highly respected for going against the grain and daring to be different by challenging the current knowledge. College campuses around the nation are banning multiple speakers in fear that a riot might break out or someone might get offended. Currently, controversial speakers are glared at as mere trouble makers, but they should be appreciated because of how passionately they bring new ideas to the table, and they, most definitely, should be allowed to speak at college campuses. One of the major reasons why controversial speakers should be allowed to speak at college campuses is college students need these speakers to listen to and develop their own opinions. They could do this by going to a debate between two controversial speakers, listen to both points, then think about what was said and form their own point of view.