In
this political cartoon by Jerry Holbert for the Boston Herald newspaper, the author uses hyperbole and humor to
capture the audience’s attention and cause them to understand the bad situation
this nation is in as a result of the nominees running for president. Jerry
Herald is a photographer and political cartoonist for the Boston Herald, a
reliable and dignified news source. The cartoon depicts three people sitting
down near a board game. The man on the left says “Would I rather get thrown off
a cliff or run over by a truck?” (Holbert) and the reader, as well as the lady
sitting to his right, assume that it is a question from a ‘Would-You-Rather’
board game. The man on the right then clarifies the reality of the situation by
saying, “[It’s] not a game, he’s deciding ‘Hillary’ or ‘Trump’” (Holbert). The
man was referring to the 2016 presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton, suggesting that neither would be a good fit for president by comparing
the choice between them to picking one of two awful deaths. The hyperbole in
Holbert’s comparison is in the extreme nature of the options the man on the left
was trying to pick between. This rhetorical strategy draws attention to how
horrible he thinks the two candidates are and that either one is going to have
devastating effects on America’s government and citizens. The author also used
humor in his depiction by comparing something so important as choosing between
presidential candidates and playing a silly bard game. This draws the attention
of the reader and makes them more attentive to the message which Holbert is
trying to get across. The two devices work together to create an extreme and
joking tone for an image regarding a heavy topic. This pulls the reader in and
shows them how serious and horrible the state of the election is in. I believe
that the author was definitely successful in his strive to achieve his purpose
and I found that the cartoon was very funny and knowledgeable at the same time.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Sunday, October 16, 2016
TOW #5
Mikayla Joffe
TOW #4
In
The Butterfly Effect by Jennifer
Lunden, the author uses drastic comparisons to help the reader understand the
migration of Monarch butterflies, the beauty in their journey, and, overall,
form a new appreciation for the spectacular creatures. This essay by Lunden won
her first place in the Creative
Nonfiction’s Winter 2011 issue and a Pushcart Prize. More of her works have
been featured in Orion and Wigleaf
and the Yale Journal for Humanities in
Medicine. In this essay, Lunden depicts her journey from the frosty Canada
to a more temperate area in California, similar to that of migrating monarch
butterflies, although she traveled via plane. By employing the strategy of
comparison, the author explains the differences between the journey of Monarch
butterflies in their migration and the human journey on an airplane. She does
this to create a feeling of envy in the reader, making them jealous of the
simplicity in their migration and thus bring the reader to further admire the
elegance and magnificence of the often over-looked insect. Lunden writes, “When
a monarch butterfly sets off on its journey to its winter destination, it does
not have to pay a $100 fee because its suitcase is 25 pounds over the limit. It
does not have to take off its shoes, its watch, its coat and scarf, in case of
bombs. […] It does not have to worry about going down. It does not worry.”
(Lunden 10). By describing all of the small nuisances of travel which humans
going on planes have to endure, like paying fees and removing various articles
of clothing as a precaution against bombs, and comparing that too the
simplicity of the butterflies’ journey, the author supports her purpose.
Jennifer Lunden therefore sparks a newfound appreciation and admiration of
monarch butterflies in the reader. I, too, experienced this feeling of jealousy
and appreciation for the butterflies. I was swept up in the author’s writing
and use of rhetorical strategies and I believe that she achieved her purpose
with ease.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
TOW #4
In What You Learn in
College by Karen Donley-Hayes, Hayes uses powerful anaphora to provoke a
sense of urgency and anxiety in the tone so that the reader can feel what she
was feeling and understand the terror she experienced. The author is the
College Editor at Hiram College and has published many works in sources like The Journal of the American Medical
Association and The Healing Muse.
What You Learn in College is a short nonfiction story about a dreadful
period of revelation for the author in which she agrees to play strip
spin-the-bottle in with her college friends while under the influence. The text
was written for other college students to prevent them from partaking in risky
or dangerous activities, given that they have just received a tremendous amount
of independence. In order to achieve her purpose, the author employs the
rhetorical strategy of anaphora, repeating the same two phrases in order to
change the tone of the essay. This device is evident when she writes, “The
bottle spins. You learn you couldn’t leave even if you had the nerve […] The
bottle spins. You learn […]” (Hayes 3-7). Not only does the author use anaphora
at the beginning of each paragraph by starting each with ‘You learn’, but she strategically
uses the device here as well. By repeating the phrase ‘The bottle spins’ followed
by the sad revelations she discovers afterward, it builds up to her regretting
the decision, and it creates a feverish sense of anxiety for the reader. The
urgency can be felt as the reader quickens their pace and devours the words to
reach her final lesson. This makes the reader’s heart race and breaths shallow
as they follower her on her similar journey, thus making them feel the same
way, understanding her fear, and knowing not to make the same mistake. I
whole-heatedly believe that the author accomplished her purpose. Her work made
me fear for her and feel scared with her. It taught me not to make quick decisions
like she did, which is what she was trying to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)