I found Wallace’s Tense Present article quite confusing. It was hard to read and it took me a lot of time to get to the end. This was probably because the audience of this article is intended to be adults of high education and academics; or someone intelligent enough that wanted to analyze the origin of words, when to use them, and why. Anyway, as I read along, I came across some things, which I thought made no sense, others that I agreed to and finally others that I did not agree with.
Wallace’s questioning of the people that came up with the definitions of the words in the common used dictionary is what first caught my attention. He uses the word “snooty” to describe them as people who believe themselves to come from a higher social status: supercilious and snobbish. Nevertheless, as he criticizes this people, asking himself why should he follow what they say, he is actually becoming a snoot himself. In addition, we know that he is an English teacher, product of a “nuclear family”; his mother was a snoot and his father just did not care at all. Therefore, I do not understand hi...
Douglas L. Wilson addresses his idea of presentism differently than that of Paul Finkelman. Wilson sees presentism (regarding Thomas Jefferson) as a problem due to the fact that Jefferson was born into a time period in which slavery was normal. Jefferson’s concern extended beyond his own morality to the well-being of his slaves (Wilson). Even though he did own slaves, it was simply a norm for his time. In Finkelman’s eyes, Jefferson was extremely hypocritical. He agrees with the idea of presentism, stating that Jefferson wanted all people to be free, yet owned several slaves during the time of which the Declaration of Independence was written. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he did little to end slavery or to dissociate himself from his role as the master of Monticello (Finkelman).
Wideman, John Edgar. “Our Time.” Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 9th ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky, Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 657-694. Print.
This rhetorical device of ethos gives Wallace good credibility as a writer. He explains how his beliefs are not logically correct and this gives the reader a sense of credibility that Wallace is not biased. This type of rhetorical device was not used in Singer’s writing piece. I believe Singer couldn’t include this type of rhetorical device because it would have taken away the scholarly aspect of his writing. Next, Wallace asks the reader their point of view on the issue of killing lobsters. Wallace asks questions such as “Do you think much about the moral status and suffering of the animals involved?” (p.20 Wallace) and “Do you ever think idly, about the possible reasons for your reluctance to think about it?” (p.20 Wallace). These questions make the reader stop and think about their personal beliefs on the issue. Even I myself started coming up with questions whether it was morally right to kill lobsters. Furthermore, Wallace’s stylistic type of writing makes it easier for the reader to understand his point of view. I believe Wallace uses this writing style to give the reader a sense of personal connection with
His intended readers were originally the subscribers of Gourmet magazine, the probable suspects who have never thought twice about the value of the food that they consume, however, by connecting through very informal and amiable phraseology in the beginning of his work, making his work easy to read, he creates an atmosphere where any type of audience can relate to him. For instance, he describes the Maine Lobster Fest to readers that may have no idea what it was beforehand, and also goes into detail on how lobsters are killed and cooked to compare and contrast ways that already informed chefs would relate to. He invites readers to join him on his moral journey, without pressuring them into feeling a certain way, which is another one of the advantages that Wallace creates. He simply states the facts, both positive and negative, and encourages his audience to think about their own values on animal
Carter gives an account of Wallace's campaign style. Wallace is portrayed as a man that uses scare tactics. He doesn't have the element of policy on his side. Political campaigns can often disrupt the cohesion of its community. Carter gives reference to how Wallace used his beliefs, intertwined with what the people he represented wanted to hear. "But Wallace, more than any other political figure of the 1960s and early 1970s, sensed the frustrations-the rage-of many American voters, made commonplace a new level of political incivility and intemperate rhetoric, and focused that anger upon a convenient set of scapegoats." (Carter 6)
Wallace speech and Edmundson’s essay have many things in common as well as differences. Both of them see college as something different than just an education where you learn. According to Wallace and Edmundson, a college where students are thought something and later forgotten is not an education. They both have an interesting view on what college is mainly for. Wallace states that college is to teach students how to think, whereas Edmundson explains that college is to “find yourself”.
“This is the truth I tell you: of all things Freedom’s the finest. Never submit to live, my son, in the bonds of slavery entwined.” William Wallace Is one of the most famous Scottish patriots of all time. He did several things to help free his country( Wallace web).
Gibson begins the speech with some light-hearted humor sarcastically saying that if he was truly William Wallace that he would
I had to read my selected article twice before I discovered the author’s purpose. He contradicts himself multiple times; therefore, his main point is somewhat hidden. Each time an individual reads a piece
Neuleib, Janice, Kathleen Shine Cain, and Stephen Ruffus, eds. Mercury Reader for English 101. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013 Print.
Wallace is the cause behind to the defeat of the insurmountable evil Edward Longshanks. His refusal to call mercy will being tortured
“the past is gone, it is already de-termin(at)ed; it cannot be changed. The future, by contrast, is open, uncertain and indeterminate. What can change about the past is its meaning, which is subject to reinterpretations, anchored in intentions and expectation towards the
With this idea of critical awareness and critical thinking, Wallace’s speech makes a lot of good points about life and being able to enjoy life, despite the reality of it. His speech, while it is presented in this somber
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.
This story also gave me a lasting impression because it showed the process of becoming a well rounded person. The story started off with Wallace feeling down about a fight he had lost and lost contact of is coach for a few weeks. Because the readers saw Wallace’s low points in his life, we can understand the difficulty there is just to transition into living the examined life. Just one apology may not seem very important but I appreciate Wallace’s