Sula Rhetorical Analysis

559 Words2 Pages

I believe that Bergenholtz’s main argument of his critique to Sula begins with the idea one cannot define right from wrong, then moves towards his thesis, which is that the goal of satire is “to entertain us and give us food for thought” (5), and concludes with what it means to be alive. His argument dances through ideas of love, humanity, race, and goodness, prompting imaginative minds to linger on revolving ideas, ones that have no answer. Bergenholtz is telling us that there is no answer to the rhetorics of satire in Sula because life has no set path, no true separation between the fantastic and realistic worlds that people exist in. To be truly alive, we need questions, not answers. Many of his subarguments reveal themselves when he discusses

Open Document