Andrea Barrett's Something Creative: A Rhetorical Analysis Of Archangel

432 Words1 Page

Something Creative: A Rhetorical Analysis of Archangel
Set in 1920, the Archangel, written by Andrea Barrett, illustrates a woman’s quest for discovery. Because of her background in Biology, Barrett centralizes her novel on one woman thirst for discovery in science. Not only does the main character, Phoebe, seek out knowledge, but she also becomes frustrated with the lack of credible information available to her. In her quest to learn, Phoebe is also determined to push her husband’s death to the back of her mind.
In post WWI Philadelphia, revolutionary ideas of relativity and the spirits of the dead were forming. Barrett opens on the main character, Phoebe, as she embarks on her journey to further explore relativity, through the teachings …show more content…

(needs desperate work.)As a work of fiction, the speaker gradually reveals information through descriptions of events as the piece progresses. Through describing friends of Phoebe’s mother as “piglike,” the speaker clearly displays Phoebe’s feelings towards the women, (119). In addition Phoebe shows her distaste for the women through her physical response as she, “drew her arm away” from the woman’s touch, (120). (not relevant to speaker because actions of character?) The negative description of Phoebe’s reaction to the lecture, she “pushed her way through the bodies,” leaving behind those who “succumbed to the resuscitated parlor tricks” of Lodge, portrays her distaste for both the physicist’s ideas and those listening (120). As the selection progresses, the audience learns to rely on the consistent insights of the speaker. By combining both Phoebe’s actions and thoughts, the speaker portrays her opinion of the lecture, as she flees from the crowd. “Wrong, so wrong,” the narrator states as Phoebe flees from the lecture, (120). The casual third person narration increases the audience’s trust in the narrator. However the narrator keeps phoebe’s widowhood hidden until the conclusion of the piece. (don’t need because it’s a counter

Open Document