This question does not suggest that your audience is stupid or uneducated. As we saw in Chapter 1, there is a great deal of confusion today about such matters as free will, truth, knowledge, opinion, and morality. Many intelligent and educated people have fallen victim to ideas and attitudes that cripple their creative and critical faculties. In many cases, your audience will appreciate your insights only if you first help them get beyond their misconceptions. Is Your Audience’s Perspective Likely to Be Narrow?
I knew the story had to be told. Not to transmit an experience is to betray it”(1) People would read what he wrote down and think about it. It usually comes the illusion after civilization but after reading it people might rethink about it. The impact on literacy is to let people consider what had happened with more points of view. Even though it is just Wiesel’s duty to write it down, the literacy may change people’s mind.
Chester Chan 29 November 2011 Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut’s masterpiece, is story of the bombing of Dresden, from living through it, and his attempt at an anti-war book. Once when he discussed his plan for writing with a movie-maker, he was asked, “Why don’t you write an anti-glacier book instead?” (Vonnegut 3) Vonnegut knew how daunting a task it was to write this novel, and even when he was done, he told the publisher, “It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre.” (Vonnegut 18) The name Slaughterhouse Five is for the slaughterhouse in which he was locked up in during the massacre, and alternately titled, The Children’s Crusade to prevent from giving war a glamorous image
Tammi Cappelletty Instructor: Dr. David Hawes English 112 September 5, 2013 Margaret Mead Summary Paper Warfare: An Invention-Not a Biological Necessity is an essay written by Margaret Mead based on her view of how war was created. Margaret believes that war was invented by man based on aggression. She believes this is a learned behavior, something that is seen, studied and repeated. She claims that, “warfare of this sort is an invention like any other inventions in terms of which we order our lives, such as writing, marriage, cooking our food instead of eating it raw, trial by jury, or burial of the dead and son on.” She goes on to explain in her essay how, “there are peoples even today who have no warfare.” She uses the Eskimos as an example and states they are probably the most conspicuous examples because they don’t understand war, not even in a defensive manner yet, they are some of the most troublesome people on our continent. According to Mead, in Alaska there are fights, cannibalism, thefts of wives and the list goes on.
In Milgram's experiment, test subjects were asked to do something that was, on the surface, unethical. Milgram was fascinated by the way people could be persuaded to cause harm to individuals if the instructions came from authoritative figures or those who would be considered credible. Although Milgram's experiment would not be conducted today for ethical reasons, the information derived from Milgram's experiment
“Reading’s in United States History”, I chose to focus on a piece of work which caught my eye from one Sheila L. Skemp, called “Patriot Father, Loyalist Son”. This caught my attention the most out of all the essays’ I read from Part II: Era of Revolution. In this essay I will examine the relationship of Benjamin and William Franklin, and how this founding father and his loyalist son had extremely different views on the American Revolution in an otherwise abnormal relationship. I will be summarizing this essay, critiquing the authors’ point of view, style of writing and finish by including my thoughts and opinions on this essay. Like most of the essays in this book, it starts off with a very well written and detailed prologue to bring the reader up to speed about what is going on in history around the subject, in this case the years leading up to the American Revolution.
While providing his overall purpose and what he hopes his reader do as result of reading Freakonomics. “It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world… You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem... You may find yourself asking a lot f questions” (209 -210). Here, Levitt simply want people to behave correctly with common sense. He also wants the reader to question things and to search for their own answers. Levitts’ purpose is to allow the reader to attack the world and their problems with smarts and their own ideas.
In the passage from Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Scott Russell Sanders responds to an essay by Salman Rushdie, a writer who left his native India for England. Rushdie describes the “effect of mass migrations” as being “the creation of radically new types of human being: people who root themselves in ideas rather than places.” In his response, Sanders appeals to both pathos and logos, but interestingly not ethos. However his only appeal to ethos is the fact that, like Rushdie, he is a fellow writer and is in position to respond to Rushdie’s essay. On the other hand, assuming he never immigrated to anywhere, by not being an immigrant is he in position to respond to Rushdie’s essay like this? His essay is argumentative, he disagrees with Rushdie that
Although you may not need it, if you really want it bad enough you’ll buy it.” (Dittfurth). He makes an excellent point about how we will buy something if we really want it but how do we know that we really want some thing. When advertisers tell us that we need some thing they make us think that we really need it by saying that everyone else has it. When advertisers push us into believing something, we don’t realize that we are spending our money on something we don’t need when we could be spending the money on something that will help us get farther ahead in life. Another one of my peers, Catherine Arrighi, majoring in business says “if you think about it, consumerism can be a good thing because there are people always trying to invent ‘the next big thing’ therefore stimulating many minds to an endless possibility of inventions and creative ideas” (Arrighi).
Kazuo Ishiguro wrote the novel Never Let Me Go, giving the impression to readers that the setting he has displayed is of a utopian and dystopian society. He portrays throughout the novel dystopian aspects. Illustrating all the characteristics in a predictable ‘dystopian’ novel, intense measurements of social control, totalitarian society depicts the aspects of a dystopian novel but the utopian side of the novel refers to the fictional society lacking of harmonious and egalitarian qualities of life depicted in utopias. The word utopia was first used in this perspective by Thomas More in his 1516 novel Utopia. The word utopia comes from a combination of two Greek ‘ou’, meaning not, and ‘topos’, and means place.