Response to Passing Post

One thing that I kept noticing in the first section of Passing was the importance of peoples eyes. Good. This is nice and neat-you've got a clear "what," and you could easily link it to a "so what." Irene kept talking about Clare's eyes. They seemed powerful. They showed emotions even before anyone had a chance to say anything. Evidence? Clare's eyes seemed to control people, like Irene, and her husband. Evidence?Irene and Clare would be talking and Irene would just give in to Clare's request, while mentioning something about her eyes. I think that in this story eyes are a metaphor women being seductive, that nobody can withstand a woman who knows how to make people do what they want. OK, so then does that take you to a queer reading? If eyes represent a woman's seductiveness, and I'd really like to see the textual evidence that suggests this to you, then is the connection between Irene and Clare shaped by this seduction? This certaintly is Clare, even from the begining, when she is living with her aunts and snitching time to go visit her old friends. People always wanted to see Clare and always talked about her afterwards, which is what Clare wanted, to be the center of attention. Later in the story, around the high 180's to low 190's Irene is the one who is having her eyes mentioned, and she is also the one winning. She is not inviting Clare to the dance, and this is a victory for Irene, that she is able to stand up against Clare. Clare is strong character, but also a selfish one. Everything she does is for herself. Irene is different, but also the same. Irene convinced her husband to keep with his profession because it was the best thing for him. But was that really why? No way! She just wants to keep her family intact! If he left what would happen to Irene? Yup! A lot of what Irene does is for herself too, which I think says that it is human nature to want things better for yourself, but that going to extremes, like Clare, is a bad thing. I think you left the eyes motif by the end of this. What you want to do is to keep a staedy what--the eyes--and then come to your "so what." It's possible that what you're saying is that the author uses Irene and Clare's eyes to show that both are selfish creatures who "see" only what is best for them. Exposing human selfishness? That is very different from your earlier motif of woman's seductiveness. Or is this about showing that Irene is every bit as controlling and seductive as Clare, even though she tries to sit in judgment of Clare?
If you write about this, then be SURE that you are doing close reading of lots of passages about eyeballs!

Response to Twain Post

In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Twain brings the attention of child abuse and human needs to readers attentions. Nice job framing the psychological/cultural approach. When the story begins one readers? does not know why Huck is so scared of footprints around the widow's house. Right after Huck sees these footprints he goes and gives all his money, which he has quite a bit of, to an adult he trusts, the judge. When Huck gets back to the widow's house his father is in his room waiting for him. Readers can tell that Huck does not like his father, "I used to be scared of him all the time, he tanned me so much. I reckon I was scared now, too; but in a minute I see I was mistaken. That is, after the first jolt, as you may say, when my breath sort of hitched - he being so unexpected; but right away after, I see I warn't scared of him worth bothering about." Great choice of passages. Remember, when you take this to an analytical essay, you need to read this passage closely. Look at Huck's physical response to this man, especially considering Huck seeks adventure and danger at this point in the story. He says he isn't scared now--do we make anything of that? Huck's father abused him and that is why he gave his money away. If you want to make something big out of this, you'll need to use the exact language--the passage to connect it to abuse. He disliked his father and didn't want him to get his money because he would just use it to buy alcohol with. When Huck and Jim found each other on the island after they both ran away Huck took to Jim because he missed people. Huck kept mentioning being lonely, "When it was dark I set by my camp fire smoking, and feeling pretty satisfied; but by-and-by it got sort of lonesome...and then went to bed; there ain't no better way to put in time when you are lonesome," and when Jim and Huck meet Huck didn't care that Jim was black, he just wanted companionship. You've just shifted topics. The lonesomeness is too much to confont here unless you change that thesis. Throughout the book Jim is characterized as a father figure, always calling Huck honey and being super happy when Huck makes it back to the raft safe after one of his times when he leaves. Huck is always happy to see Jim too, which is a characteristic of abused children, they often "seek comfort in an adult who won't abuse them", according to the Wise Geek article "How Might a Child's Behavior Show Signs of Abuse". Nice. This model will work well, and it will allow you to focus your argument. Your what = Huck demonstrates characteristics typical of abused children. Other than looking for comfort in Jim as a characteristic of being abused, Huck matured very fast. Because Huck's father was an alcoholic and so crazy, Huck had to mature and learn to care for himself at too early of an age. This is another characteristic of abused children, according the same article by Wise Geek, abused children "may display signs of maturity beyond their years. One sign of abuse may be the use of sexual or obscene language." Well, Huck doesn't really use sexual or obscene language, does he? Huck takes care of himself, defends himself from his father, makes sure he has food, smokes, uses profane language, and even fakes his own death to help him run away.
You're now switching models here. You're switching from the Huck is a typical abused kid approach to looking at Hucking through the hierarchy of needs. Because Huck has to take care of himself and had and abusive father, he is at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Huck is searching for his basic needs. He sets traps for food and hunts for food, he just has the great outdoors for a shelter, and has to build a fire for warmth. Finding these basic necessities takes up all his time and he cannot get to the next stage, until Jim shows up. When Jim is there they help each other with the basic necessities so that they can move up to the next level, safety needs. Since there are now two of them, they have protection, security, order and stability. Because they are both running they are always worrying about being caught which holds them from the next level of the hierarchy, but on the other hand they have a method of running at night and hiding during the day that sometimes lets them reach the next level. This is true, but it feels like summary. There isn't much "so what" in looking at this.
Huck some nights would find Jim crying about his children and how he missed them and was sad at how they were never going to see their father again. Rather than moving neatly up the pyramid, this is where you can complicate things. Which is the next level, Belongingness and Love needs, such as family, affection, relationships. Aren't both Huck and Jim the product of a society that has so warped family relationships that they can't really demonstrate this level of need? Huck never really felt a family pull because he was abused, but you can tell that as the book progresses there is the hint of a friendship between Jim and Huck. I say hint because evertime Huck is presented with society the friendship is nearly extinguished and the only reason Huck doesn't tell on Jim is because he wants to keep his word. This friendship is and important part in the development of the book. The friendship is around when it is just Huck and Jim on the raft, but as soon as Huck goes to land the friendship is almost forgotten of extinguished. This is demonstrated at the Grangerfords. Huck goes on shore, then he gets accepted by this family and never talks about Jim until he is reunited with him. When it is just Huck and Jim on the raft, and they have their running scheme working and their basic needs met and they are acting as friends, they are ready to move up to the next level. This level is the Esteem needs, such as achievement, status, responsibility and reputation. I agree--I think you can argue that they never progress to this next level of emotional health because they have such warped relationships with others and unfulfilled needs for belonging. This seems to be where Huck and Jim are stuck throughout the book, because there is never a place where it just states that Huck and Jim made achievements. (I didn't think I found any, but since you are going to be responding to this could you tell me if you thought there was a place, besides the begining, where you thought Jim and Huck had made it passed the Esteem needs level?) The only time Huck was above the esteem needs level and onto the Self-actualisation level was way at the begining of the book when he lived with the widow. At the widows the repeated themes were that he needed to be free and his own master, and that he was depressed. Huck was trying to figure out what he was supposed to do with his life, what he was meant to do, and that made him depressed. He was at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy, I'm not sure you can really argue this. The kind of self-actualization that Huck demonstrates isn't the kind of mature, total fulfillment that Maslow is describing. until his father came back and started to abuse him, and he never made it back to the top.
You've done so much great thinking; right now, your issue is that this is gigantic. You want to narrow your "what." Are we looking at Huck or at Jim? You could make this quite neat and tight by focusing on Jim--slavery deprives him of all levels of need and makes it impossible for him to be a fully developed human being. But that doesn't seem to be what you want to do. What about this: Huck's early abuse leave him trying to fulfill the level of love/belongingness needs that you're describing. His journey is a journey to fulfill these needs. Does he succeed with Jim ultimately? I don't know. That could be your question.
So how would you structure this? Intro: you'd set up Maslow and get to your thesis about Huck, what you see and so what--why does this help us understand Huck's character in a new way?
Body: first you prove Huck's connections with others are warped because of the abuse he has suffered. You don't need to use that article you cite here--you've found fine textual evidence.
Then, you show evidence from the different sections (the Grangefords, etc.) showing that what Huck truly seeks is love/belonging.
Then, you ask, does he find that with the least likely character of all, the slave? Or do we overestimate this connection? After all, he gets adopted in the end and is still ready to "light out" for the territories?

Passing Post

One thing that I kept noticing in the first section of Passing was the importance of peoples eyes. Irene kept talking about Clare's eyes. They seemed powerful. They showed emotions even before anyone had a chance to say anything. Clare's eyes seemed to control people, like Irene, and her husband. Irene and Clare would be talking and Irene would just give in to Clare's request, while mentioning something about her eyes. I think that in this story eyes are a metaphor women being seductive, that nobody can withstand a woman who knows how to make people do what they want. This certaintly is Clare, even from the begining, when she is living with her aunts and snitching time to go visit her old friends. People always wanted to see Clare and always talked about her afterwards, which is what Clare wanted, to be the center of attention. Later in the story, around the high 180's to low 190's Irene is the one who is having her eyes mentioned, and she is also the one winning. She is not inviting Clare to the dance, and this is a victory for Irene, that she is able to stand up against Clare. Clare is strong character, but also a selfish one. Everything she does is for herself. Irene is different, but also the same. Irene convinced her husband to keep with his profession because it was the best thing for him. But was that really why? If he left what would happen to Irene? A lot of what Irene does is for herself too, which I think says that it is human nature to want things better for yourself, but that going to extremes, like Clare, is a bad thing.

Huck Finn Posting

In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Twain brings the attention of child abuse and human needs to readers attentions. When the story begins one does not know why Huck is so scared of footprints around the widow's house. Right after Huck sees these footprints he goes and gives all his money, which he has quite a bit of, to an adult he trusts, the judge. When Huck gets back to the widow's house his father is in his room waiting for him. Readers can tell that Huck does not like his father, "I used to be scared of him all the time, he tanned me so much. I reckon I was scared now, too; but in a minute I see I was mistaken. That is, after the first jolt, as you may say, when my breath sort of hitched - he being so unexpected; but right away after, I see I warn't scared of him worth bothering about." Huck's father abused him and that is why he gave his money away. He disliked his father and didn't want him to get his money because he would just use it to buy alcohol with. When Huck and Jim found each other on the island after they both ran away Huck took to Jim because he missed people. Huck kept mentioning being lonely, "When it was dark I set by my camp fire smoking, and feeling pretty satisfied; but by-and-by it got sort of lonesome...and then went to bed; there ain't no better way to put in time when you are lonesome," and when Jim and Huck meet Huck didn't care that Jim was black, he just wanted companionship. Throughout the book Jim is characterized as a father figure, always calling Huck honey and being super happy when Huck makes it back to the raft safe after one of his times when he leaves. Huck is always happy to see Jim too, which is a characteristic of abused children, they often "seek comfort in an adult who won't abuse them", according to the Wise Geek article "How Might a Child's Behavior Show Signs of Abuse". Other than looking for comfort in Jim as a characteristic of being abused, Huck matured very fast. Because Huck's father was an alcoholic and so crazy, Huck had to mature and learn to care for himself at too early of an age. This is another characteristic of abused children, according the same article by Wise Geek, abused children "may display signs of maturity beyond their years. One sign of abuse may be the use of sexual or obscene language." Huck takes care of himself, defends himself from his father, makes sure he has food, smokes, uses profane language, and even fakes his own death to help him run away. Because Huck has to take care of himself and had and abusive father, he is at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Huck is searching for his basic needs. He sets traps for food and hunts for food, he just has the great outdoors for a shelter, and has to build a fire for warmth. Finding these basic necessities takes up all his time and he cannot get to the next stage, until Jim shows up. When Jim is there they help each other with the basic necessities so that they can move up to the next level, safety needs. Since there are now two of them, they have protection, security, order and stability. Because they are both running they are always worrying about being caught which holds them from the next level of the hierarchy, but on the other hand they have a method of running at night and hiding during the day that sometimes lets them reach the next level. Huck some nights would find Jim crying about his children and how he missed them and was sad at how they were never going to see their father again. Which is the next level, Belongingness and Love needs, such as family, affection, relationships. Huck never really felt a family pull because he was abused, but you can tell that as the book progresses there is the hint of a friendship between Jim and Huck. I say hint because evertime Huck is presented with society the friendship is nearly extinguished and the only reason Huck doesn't tell on Jim is because he wants to keep his word. This friendship is and important part in the development of the book. The friendship is around when it is just Huck and Jim on the raft, but as soon as Huck goes to land the friendship is almost forgotten of extinguished. This is demonstrated at the Grangerfords. Huck goes on shore, then he gets accepted by this family and never talks about Jim until he is reunited with him. When it is just Huck and Jim on the raft, and they have their running scheme working and their basic needs met and they are acting as friends, they are ready to move up to the next level. This level is the Esteem needs, such as achievement, status, responsibility and reputation. This seems to be where Huck and Jim are stuck throughout the book, because there is never a place where it just states that Huck and Jim made achievements. (I didn't think I found any, but since you are going to be responding to this could you tell me if you thought there was a place, besides the begining, where you thought Jim and Huck had made it passed the Esteem needs level?) The only time Huck was above the esteem needs level and onto the Self-actualisation level was way at the begining of the book when he lived with the widow. At the widows the repeated themes were that he needed to be free and his own master, and that he was depressed. Huck was trying to figure out what he was supposed to do with his life, what he was meant to do, and that made him depressed. He was at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy, until his father came back and started to abuse him, and he never made it back to the top.

Response to Thoreau Post

Close Read:The first thing I notice about this passage is the contrast of the short first sentence and the very long third sentence. To me, the way the first sentence is constructed in a short, not descriptive yet informative style, makes it feel like a topic sentence. That's a good observation. It is an essay--it makes sense to look for topic sentences. It lets you know what he is going to be talking about, so that when he has a really long third sentence you don't get confused and lose interest because he has started sounding like the grown ups in Charlie Brown, "Blah blah blah blah blah." In this first sentence we are introduced to this theme of awakening. He mentions "...the awakening hour." This can be taken literally, the human body comes from sleep into a conscious state, or it can be taken on a more spiritual level, the soul is more in touch with God and nature and the God that is seen in nature. Yes, you've got the metaphor of awakening and the morning in here. Thoreau keeps referring to the second way of interpreting awakening throughout this passage, which, along with its construction, helps make the first sentence feel like a topic sentence. In the second sentence readers run into contrasts referencing to a more spiritual awakening. Thoreau starts the second sentence by saying "Then there is least somnolence in us" which is the opposite of what most people feel. When I wake up in the morning I am the MOST sleepy I am all day. This contrast helps me think about the awakening he is talking about in a more spiritual way, because physically I cannot relate, but emotionally, like when watching the sun rise over a dew covered field, You're a Romantic! I can understand what he means by having my soul awakened. This brings the thought that my soul awakens in the morning to a more personal level, which builds up his ethos, because it is harder to tell yourself that you are wrong than it is to tell someone else that they are wrong. After introducing the way to think of being awake in the first sentence, and building up his ethos and getting readers to understand what he means by being awake in the second sentence, Thoreau puts in a long sentence to back up what he is saying. He does this by using contrasts and some pathos. The first contrast we see is between what Thoreau calls "...our Genius..." and the "...mechanical nudgings of some servitor...". The Genius Thoreau is talking about is the God readers find in nature. (God being found in nature is a romanticist quality, so that fits in with Thoreau.) This is a big contrast to the American city and peer pressure. Good job identifying this central contrast. In the first part of the sentence Thoreau is saying that you cannot have a good day if you are awakened (this awakened is bodily consciousness, not spiritual) by the city and its hustle and bustle rather than nature and its serenity and pureness. The second contrast readers come across is the one between "...aspirations from within..." and ..."factory bells...". Here Thoreau pulls in pathos to make readers believe what he is saying. One of the things Americans want to have is "...force and aspirations from within...". When Thoreau put that line in he caught our attention again and made us want to agree with him because he is relating what he is saying to what we want and believe in. Also in this contrast Thoreau took a part of everyday life that people probably didn't think twice about and made it an enemy of American "force and aspirations from within" by setting it opposite to it. This contrast makes even me, who never had been called to awaken by factory bells, dislike them because they took away my inner drive and made me a robot, a slave to society. Yes. Mechanization is always a negative for Thoreau. "Progress" itself is a suspect notion. Thoreau also did the opposite of a contrast and took two things that normally aren't seen together and teamed them up to help defend his position. Thoreau took "...force and aspirations from within..." and said that it was "...accompanied by the undulations of celestial music...". The word "force" makes me think of a straight powerful line, whereas the word "undulations" makes me think of a strain of music that is dancing on the wind with no care or hurry. These two things are different, but together make a powerful line saying that the force and drive you have from within is itself driven from the God found in nature, not factory bells. Also in the first two parts of the third sentence is parallel structure. Thoreau repeats "...are not awakened...". This parallel structure helps readers connect the two parts of the sentence which makes it easier to relate to the first/topic sentence. The parallel structure is also doubling as repetition that helps readers remember that we ARE NOT AWAKENED by these things. In the fourth and fifth sentences Thoreau delves even farther into the spiritual side of awakening. Thoreau uses diction that really defends God in nature. Words like sacred, auroral, soul, reinvigorated, Genius, and noble, all remind readers of God and the bible. I'd say more spirituality than Bible, but definitely religious connotations, yes. In the fourth sentence Thoreau says that if man doesn't believe that the next morning will bring an even better and more spiritual hour than any before, he has already started descending towards hell. In the fifth sentence Thoreau says that after sleep the "soul of man" is fresh and ready to let God in nature try and better him/her again. By using such strong religious diction readers cannot mistake what he is saying, which is just an even more clear way of saying what he has been saying throughout this passage: your soul awakens in the morning with the help of God in nature. In the last part of this passage Thoreau uses a rhetorical question and his personal experience to build ethos pathos and conclude this part of his work. Thoreau uses a hyperbole to make readers think about what all they have read. When he says the part starting with "The millions are awake enough..." and ending with "...to a poetic or divine life," Thoreau is using exaggerated statistics to say that he does not believe anyone takes the time to let God in nature do its work every morning. Thoreau also uses a sort of reverse parallel structure in this part. At the beginning Thoreau uses a short then long sentence to get his point across, but now he uses a long then a short sentence to get his point across. This makes this part stand out to readers because it is different than what they have yet seen. The last two lines of this passage are, "I have not yet met a man who was quite awake. How could i have looked him in the face?" Thoreau uses these very strong lines as his closing emphasis on how important what he has been saying is. His ending rhetorical question really packs a literary punch. When a man as in touch with nature as Thoreau is says he could not look a man who is truly one with God in nature in the face, it shifts this entire passage up a notch and sets it on a pedestal to be re-examined. What a great way to end a powerful passage. You are reading in such depth, Caitlin. Sometimes you're looking at so much that I'm not sure I'm following what you mean. It's ok to set limits for yourself, to look at three or four central elements of a passage. Remember, too, that things like ethos/pathos/logos usually show up in persuasive texts. Once we get to fiction, you'll be looking at all the old elements of fiction. Anyway, this is a great close reading. Thank you for all the time you're putting into your reading.

Henry David Thoreau

"The morning, which is the most memorable season of the day, is the awakening hour. Then there is least somnolence in us; and for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes of that day, if it can be called a day, to which we are not awakened by our Genius, but by the mechanical nudging of some servitor, are not awakened by our own newly acquired force and aspirations from within, accompanied by the undulations of celestial music, instead of factory bells, and a fragrance filling the air--to a higher life than we fell asleep from; and thus the darkness bear its fruit, and prove itself to be good, no less than the light. The man who does not believe that each day contains and earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour then he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way. After a partial cessation of his sensuous life, the soul of man, or its organs rather, are reinvigorated each day, and his Genius tries again what noble life it can make." also "The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could i have looked him in the face?"

Close Read:

The first thing I notice about this passage is the contrast of the short first sentence and the very long third sentence. To me, the way the first sentence is constructed in a short, not descriptive yet informative style, makes it feel like a topic sentence. It lets you know what he is going to be talking about, so that when he has a really long third sentence you don't get confused and lose interest because he has started sounding like the grown ups in Charlie Brown, "Blah blah blah blah blah." In this first sentence we are introduced to this theme of awakening. He mentions "...the awakening hour." This can be taken literally, the human body comes from sleep into a conscious state, or it can be taken on a more spiritual level, the soul is more in touch with God and nature and the God that is seen in nature. Thoreau keeps referring to the second way of interpreting awakening throughout this passage, which, along with its construction, helps make the first sentence feel like a topic sentence. In the second sentence readers run into contrasts referencing to a more spiritual awakening. Thoreau starts the second sentence by saying "Then there is least somnolence in us" which is the opposite of what most people feel. When I wake up in the morning I am the MOST sleepy I am all day. This contrast helps me think about the awakening he is talking about in a more spiritual way, because physically I cannot relate, but emotionally, like when watching the sun rise over a dew covered field, I can understand what he means by having my soul awakened. This brings the thought that my soul awakens in the morning to a more personal level, which builds up his ethos, because it is harder to tell yourself that you are wrong than it is to tell someone else that they are wrong. After introducing the way to think of being awake in the first sentence, and building up his ethos and getting readers to understand what he means by being awake in the second sentence, Thoreau puts in a long sentence to back up what he is saying. He does this by using contrasts and some pathos. The first contrast we see is between what Thoreau calls "...our Genius..." and the "...mechanical nudgings of some servitor...". The Genius Thoreau is talking about is the God readers find in nature. (God being found in nature is a romanticist quality, so that fits in with Thoreau.) This is a big contrast to the American city and peer pressure. In the first part of the sentence Thoreau is saying that you cannot have a good day if you are awakened (this awakened is bodily consciousness, not spiritual) by the city and its hustle and bustle rather than nature and its serenity and pureness. The second contrast readers come across is the one between "...aspirations from within..." and ..."factory bells...". Here Thoreau pulls in pathos to make readers believe what he is saying. One of the things Americans want to have is "...force and aspirations from within...". When Thoreau put that line in he caught our attention again and made us want to agree with him because he is relating what he is saying to what we want and believe in. Also in this contrast Thoreau took a part of everyday life that people probably didn't think twice about and made it an enemy of American "force and aspirations from within" by setting it opposite to it. This contrast makes even me, who never had been called to awaken by factory bells, dislike them because they took away my inner drive and made me a robot, a slave to society. Thoreau also did the opposite of a contrast and took two things that normally aren't seen together and teamed them up to help defend his position. Thoreau took "...force and aspirations from within..." and said that it was "...accompanied by the undulations of celestial music...". The word "force" makes me think of a straight powerful line, whereas the word "undulations" makes me think of a strain of music that is dancing on the wind with no care or hurry. These two things are different, but together make a powerful line saying that the force and drive you have from within is itself driven from the God found in nature, not factory bells. Also in the first two parts of the third sentence is parallel structure. Thoreau repeats "...are not awakened...". This parallel structure helps readers connect the two parts of the sentence which makes it easier to relate to the first/topic sentence. The parallel structure is also doubling as repetition that helps readers remember that we ARE NOT AWAKENED by these things. In the fourth and fifth sentences Thoreau delves even farther into the spiritual side of awakening. Thoreau uses diction that really defends God in nature. Words like sacred, auroral, soul, reinvigorated, Genius, and noble, all remind readers of God and the bible. In the fourth sentence Thoreau says that if man doesn't believe that the next morning will bring an even better and more spiritual hour than any before, he has already started descending towards hell. In the fifth sentence Thoreau says that after sleep the "soul of man" is fresh and ready to let God in nature try and better him/her again. By using such strong religious diction readers cannot mistake what he is saying, which is just an even more clear way of saying what he has been saying throughout this passage: your soul awakens in the morning with the help of God in nature. In the last part of this passage Thoreau uses a rhetorical question and his personal experience to build ethos pathos and conclude this part of his work. Thoreau uses a hyperbole to make readers think about what all they have read. When he says the part starting with "The millions are awake enough..." and ending with "...to a poetic or divine life," Thoreau is using exaggerated statistics to say that he does not believe anyone takes the time to let God in nature do its work every morning. Thoreau also uses a sort of reverse parallel structure in this part. At the beginning Thoreau uses a short then long sentence to get his point across, but now he uses a long then a short sentence to get his point across. This makes this part stand out to readers because it is different than what they have yet seen. The last two lines of this passage are, "I have not yet met a man who was quite awake. How could i have looked him in the face?" Thoreau uses these very strong lines as his closing emphasis on how important what he has been saying is. His ending rhetorical question really packs a literary punch. When a man as in touch with nature as Thoreau is says he could not look a man who is truly one with God in nature in the face, it shifts this entire passage up a notch and sets it on a pedestal to be re-examined. What a great way to end a powerful passage.

Response to Douglass

When I finished reading this passage the first thing that came to my mind was how smart Douglass is. I know what you mean! His diction in this piece, the strong language like: "I have often been utterly astonished'" and "It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake," makes his readers believe that he knows what he is talking about. Writers seldom use such strong and definite diction unless they really know what they are talking about and are positive they are right. The strong writing in this passage also create ethos.
The first thing I noticed about this passage is that Douglass right away uses antithesis. You got it. You identify a central persuasive element--nice stuff. He starts out this passage with a long descriptive sentence, then his second sentence is short and to the point saying that the beliefs people had, which were described in his firts sentence, were wrong. This opposition of long sentence then straight to short sentence really makes the short sentence catch your eye, and your mind. Yes. This is the moment when he refutes a popular misconception, and you do a nice job noting how his writing reflects his purpose. This is important because the whole point of this passage is to say that white men don't know black men, and that white men and black men are one in the same. Well, I'm not quite seeing this declaration of racial equality. Can you specify how you get that from this sentence? This is stated very early in his antithesis which is also his second sentence. The words that I notice first are "utterly astonished". I don't hear these words used together often so when he put them together I got a feeling of how weird it was for him to hear that white men think slaves sing because they are happy without Douglass having to use weak adjectives like very. This builds up his ethos for me because it makes me feel like he not only knows what he is talking about, but also knows how to say it powerfully. Some sentences that stuck out to me were "The songs of the slaves represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears," and "The singing of a man cast upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion". These sentences stuck out to me because of the combination of their content and structure. Both of these sentences have pathos in them, but what really makes the pathos so strong is the way the sentences use comparisons. Comparing slave songs to an aching heart crying really strikes a heart string with me. It makes me want to reach out and try to comfort the slave, even though I have never known one. The only reason I want to reach out and comfort is because I can relate to the slave now. Just saying the slave sing because they are sad wouldn't help convince anyone that slavery should be gone. What makes the sentence so powerful is that the comparison given makes you able to relate to the slaves. Everyone has cried, so everyone can understand this comparison. Notice this also fits with the Age of Reason belief in sensitive-but-strong men. He builds his ethos as a man (and as a human being!) by displaying his sensitivity. Douglass's ability to write sophisticated, yet have everyone able to relate to a slave is genius. He is able to get you to feel emotions that slaves, on a much more grandious scale, would feel. By knowing this we see that slaves must be humans just like us. Because we are able to feel how they feel, slaves must be at least similar to us. This conclusion is what Douglass was hoping for. In this passage he wanted to get us to realize that slaves are human and slavery is wrong, to the point of inhuman if you are openminded. Since I have only read through chapter nine it is hard to say, but I think that this passage could be a microcosm to the book. Frederik Douglass was an escaped slave who was also an abolitionist. So far I have found this work to not only be a narrative, but also a persuasive book about why slavery is wrong. This passage supports that claim by saying that slaves are humans like you and me and they should have the same rights we have. He doesn't directly say this, but once you have read the passage and taken in the afore mentioned sentences you realize that slavery being wrong is the theme of this passage. In this passage is also saw an Age of Reason theme. Douglass says "I have often sung to drown my sorrow...". This supports the Age of Reason thought that men should be manly and sensitive. You're right with me, sister! Great stuff. Saying that he could cry made Doulass an Age of Reason man which would create ethos with the white men and women to whom this writing was designed for.
I want you to pause for a moment and realize how well you analyzed one little passage. I want to get you going with an analytical essay right now--you're in high gear. Well done.

Frederick Douglass is amazing!

"I have often been utterly astonished, since I came to the north, to find persons who could speak of the singing, among slaves, as evidence of their contentment and happiness. It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake. Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy. The songs of the slave represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears. At least, such is my experience. I have often sung to drown my sorrow, but seldom to express my happiness. Crying for joy, and singing for joy, were alike uncommon to me while in the jaws of slavery. The singing of a man cast away upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion."

Close Reading Response:

When I finished reading this passage the first thing that came to my mind was how smart Douglass is. His diction in this piece, the strong language like: "I have often been utterly astonished'" and "It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake," makes his readers believe that he knows what he is talking about. Writers seldom use such strong and definite diction unless they really know what they are talking about and are positive they are right. The strong writing in this passage also create ethos. The first thing I noticed about this passage is that Douglass right away uses antithesis. He starts out this passage with a long descriptive sentence, then his second sentence is short and to the point saying that the beliefs people had, which were described in his firts sentence, were wrong. This opposition of long sentence then straight to short sentence really makes the short sentence catch your eye, and your mind. This is important because the whole point of this passage is to say that white men don't know black men, and that white men and black men are one in the same. This is stated very early in his antithesis which is also his second sentence. The words that I notice first are "utterly astonished". I don't hear these words used together often so when he put them together I got a feeling of how weird it was for him to hear that white men think slaves sing because they are happy without Douglass having to use weak adjectives like very. This builds up his ethos for me because it makes me feel like he not only knows what he is talking about, but also knows how to say it powerfully. Some sentences that stuck out to me were "The songs of the slaves represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears," and "The singing of a man cast upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion". These sentences stuck out to me because of the combination of their content and structure. Both of these sentences have pathos in them, but what really makes the pathos so strong is the way the sentences use comparisons. Comparing slave songs to an aching heart crying really strikes a heart string with me. It makes me want to reach out and try to comfort the slave, even though I have never known one. The only reason I want to reach out and comfort is because I can relate to the slave now. Just saying the slave sing because they are sad wouldn't help convince anyone that slavery should be gone. What makes the sentence so powerful is that the comparison given makes you able to relate to the slaves. Everyone has cried, so everyone can understand this comparison. Douglass's ability to write sophisticated, yet have everyone able to relate to a slave is genius. He is able to get you to feel emotions that slaves, on a much more grandious scale, would feel. By knowing this we see that slaves must be humans just like us. Because we are able to feel how they feel, slaves must be at least similar to us. This conclusion is what Douglass was hoping for. In this passage he wanted to get us to realize that slaves are human and slavery is wrong, to the point of inhuman if you are openminded. Since I have only read through chapter nine it is hard to say, but I think that this passage could be a microcosm to the book. Frederik Douglass was an escaped slave who was also an abolitionist. So far I have found this work to not only be a narrative, but also a persuasive book about why slavery is wrong. This passage supports that claim by saying that slaves are humans like you and me and they should have the same rights we have. He doesn't directly say this, but once you have read the passage and taken in the afore mentioned sentences you realize that slavery being wrong is the theme of this passage. In this passage is also saw an Age of Reason theme. Douglass says "I have often sung to drown my sorrow...". This supports the Age of Reason thought that men should be manly and sensitive. Saying that he could cry made Doulass an Age of Reason man which would create ethos with the white men and women to whom this writing was designed for.

Response to Patrick Henry Post

This passage starts with alliteration. "...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions..." When you're talking about vowels, you're talking assonance. The alliteration helps us remember that we are only human and "indulge in illusions". Smart observation. Notice, though, that the real emphasis is on "illusions." The illusory nature of a hopeful solution is one of his central claims in this speech. At the end of this sentence Henry uses the word hope. Because of the alliteration in the sentence, the word hope really sticks out to the reader, or listener. I see. Interesting point. Perfect opportunity to connect this. Why does he want hope to stick out? What is he saying about hope? If anything, he wants to get rid of hopes. The next two sentences Henry uses rhetorical questions. These questions are also posed as parallel structure. They both start out with clauses, then a comma, then they finish with another clause. This is meant to inhance the rhetorical questions. The questions will make the listener think, and by adding parallel structure it makes you think even more. It's hard to follow your line of thinking here. How does the clause structure benefit him? You need to clarify tha tpoint. It makes us think even more because it links the two questions closer and in turn makes us compare the answers together. The langauge of ears hearing not and eyes seeing not is also Biblical. He suggests that men must focus not on eternity but on their time on earth ("temporal salvation"). This is a very smart tactic in a persuasive speech. The prior sentence is a general truth. No need to state the general. Keep it specific. Why does a specific tactic advance his spcific purpose? The first sentence and the last sentence in my passage also share a parallel structure. They both start out with a subject of sorts, and then finish with a statement of truth. This, like the questions, has our minds compare the two statements. I'm not following what you mean here. You'll have to cite specifics to be sure all that's going on in your fine brain is coming out clearly. Always be sure to take us from what you see to "so what," why it's important.
Another fascinating aspect of your passage is the allusion to the sirens. Throughout this speech, Henry portrays the king as someone duplicitious, ensnaring, and devious. This is in stark contrast to Henry himself, who is "willing to know the whole truth," as he tells us (ethos).

Patrick Henry

This passage starts with alliteration. "...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions..." The alliteration helps us remember that we are only human and "indulge in illusions". At the end of this sentence Henry uses the word hope. Because of the alliteration in the sentence, the word hope really sticks out to the reader, or listener. The next two sentences Henry uses rhetorical questions. These questions are also posed as parallel structure. They both start out with clauses, then a comma, then they finish with another clause. This is meant to inhance the rhetorical questions. The questions will make the listener think, and by adding parallel structure it makes you think even more. It makes us think even more because it links the two questions closer and in turn makes us compare the answers together. This is a very smart tactic in a persuasive speech. The first sentence and the last sentence in my passage also share a parallel structure. They both start out with a subject of sorts, and then finish with a statement of truth. This, like the questions, has our minds compare the two statements.