The main idea of Jack London’s “Story of an Eyewitness” is about the destruction of San Francisco. The story takes place in San Francisco after 1906’s aftermath of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake and fire. It starts with Jack London’s description of the devastating destruction, flames, horror, and the terrible things that are happening in the city. As the fire grows, people soon realize it cannot be contained despite the work of the firefighters. Tens of thousands of refugees decide to flee and let the flames consume the rest of the city. Thanks to the immediate relief given by the whole United States, there was no possibility of famine and the repairs of the city was soon underway. I enjoyed this story for its strong uses of vivid imagery, figurative …show more content…
Along with a strong main idea, this story contains many examples of figurative language and strong uses of vocabulary. "But the Conflagration that followed burned up hundreds of millions of dollars,"(London.) The word "Conflagration" means a large, destructive fire. The word "Conflagration" is followed by "burned up hundreds of millions of dollars," so we can use context clues to understand that "Conflagration" mean a great big fire. London uses this word to paint a vivid imagine of a raging blaze. Besides vocabulary, many different forms of figurative language was also used. For example, "The smoke pall itself, viewed from beneath, was a rose color that pulsed and fluttered with lavender shades," (London) is a personification because it is impossible for smoke to pulse like a human. Another example would be "It was like meeting of the handful of survivors after the day of the end of the world," (London.) This would be a simile because it is comparing the devastation of the earthquake and fire to the end of the world. Overall, I think the author did a good job with using strong vocabulary words and figurative language to describe what occurred after the
I found this book to be a rather interesting read. I enjoyed how Levathes researched this book and wrote it to try to explain about this specific period of time and how it is very non-fiction.
When one of the worst earthquakes ever hits the town of San Francisco panic ensues, but not for everyone. On April 18, 1906, at 5:15 am the city of San Francisco was demolished by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake which also led to many fires being started. There was $350m in estimated damages, and 400-750 people perished in the earthquake and fire. Around 490 city blocks were destroyed, causing 250,000 people to become homeless (A Brief Account, SF Tourism Tips). In the aftermath of the earthquake there were many eyewitness accounts written about it. The eyewitness account, “Comprehending the Calamity,” by Emma Burke and the eyewitness account,"Horrific Wreck of the City" by Fred Hewitt both describe the same event, but they both have very different
I felt kind of ok like I was there, it told you all the details and I like that. It is hard reading this book knowing that there was an actual time when people behaved in that manner. I think this book will maybe even change people’s perspective on life as a whole. Excellent selection for students! !
...nd enjoyable. The one thing that did bug me was that Youngs does not directly tie his thesis directly to the end of the book. It would have been helpful for the reader to be able to confirm Youngs’s intention for writing the book, but since he fails to re-introduce his argument in the end, it left me questioning that intention.
My overall opinion of this book is good I really liked it and recommend it to anyone. It is a good book to read and it keep you interested throughout the whole book.
This is my personal reflection about this book. First and foremost, I would like to say that this book is very thick and long to read. There are about nineteen chapters and 278 pages altogether. As a slow reader, it is a quite hard for me to finish reading it within time. It took me weeks to finish reading it as a whole. Furthermore, it is written in English version. My English is just in average so sometimes I need to refer to dictionary for certain words. Sometimes I use google translate and ask my friends to explain the meaning of certain terms.
Criticisms (Unfavourable): Near the end of the book the dialogue becomes more rhetorical than the rest of the book. This isn’t really a problem, but can become slightly confusing at times. The best option would be to read this part slowly and carefully in order to understand what the message is.
Now if I may go off the subject for a moment I would like to say how beautifully and descriptively the book is written. There is one passage in particular that I truly enjoyed reading :
What do you think the writer wants his/her readers to think and/or do after reading this book?
Mrs. Rayfield wrote a great article about the devastation left over after this massive fire. I found that her accounts were very detailed and had good pictures to go along with them. I decided to use this source in my essay because she also showed the good effect that the fire had on the city not only the bad. She had a complete different point of view.
People around the city went to bed, everything seemed relatively normal. Smoke dwindling into the dark night sky, the faint smell of burning wood. All normal for Chicago. Fires were a daily part of life for this wooden city. Near the time of 2 a.m. the fire didn’t seem so normal and average anymore. A mean flame was being born, it was blazing to life.
Starr, Kevin. “The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself.” University of California Press. 83:3 (2006): 45-61. Web. 16 April. 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161821
Firstly, I liked the way in which the author uses his experiences to relate ...
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
This short story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world. It is unclear to the readers how the world got to be this way. This story takes place four years after all this chaos began. The narrator does an excellent job setting the scene throughout the story using lots of details. It is revealed throughout the story that it takes place during