Archive for January, 2008

Diction Essay on J. F. K.’s Inaugural Address: Revision Analysis

The major problem in this essay, and in most of my timed essays, is a lack of organization.  This, obviously, leaves the reader feeling confused.  To better organize the paper, I added topic sentences to each paragraph and clarified and compacted the thesis statement.  In future essays, I will try to always includes topic sentences and make sure that each point made in the paragraph relates to the topioc sentence.

 Another problem I noticed in this essay that could lead to confusion was undefined pronouns or other summary nouns.  For example, in the revised essay I defined the “audience” and “cause” in the introduction.  I also highlighted the words “bonds” and chains” so it was clear which words I was reffering to.  Since I wrote this essay so long ago, this revision has taught me to look at the paper from an outsiders’s point of view, which in the future will allow me to increase the clarity of my essays.

Diction Essay on J. F. K.’s Inaugural Address: After

In his Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy is attempting to reach Americans and the rest of the world and motivate them to fight for liberty, progress, and the ending of the Cold War.  Kennedy uses strong rhetorical techniques through interpersonal and directive diction to connect his audience to himself (the speaker) and his goals for the nation and world (the subject).  

            To connect with his audience, Kennedy uses interpersonal diction in the form of presenting himself as an equal, using inclusive pronouns, and implying a common ground with the majority.  Kennedy has only recently been elected to office and it is crucial that he connects with his audience by ensuring them he is both a “fellow American” and a “fellow citizen of the world.”  Several times throughout the text, especially when introducing a new point or emphasizing a point, Kennedy uses the inclusive pronouns “we” and “us.”  Such interpersonal diction challenges not only on the world but also himself.  In order to relate the Christian majority to America, Kennedy makes references to the “Almighty God.”  Including God in both the introduction and conclusion heightens his point of God’s importance.  This reference can be contrasted to Bush’s speech, in which the god referenced is not solely the Christian God.  Such a difference is based on the different audiences, as modern America has a greater religious diversity.  Kennedy also uses an age-old technique, which can be found in speeches from revolutionary hero Patrick Henry to modern President Bush, of complimenting the audience so they are more willing to dedicate themselves to the speaker’s cause.  Specifically Kennedy says, “only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom” to positively set the audience aside from the rest of mankind. 

            Kennedy utilizes directive diction to connect the audience with the subject by delivering a clear choice, using emotive diction and connotations, and presenting a personal challenge.  Similar to Bush and Patrick Henry, Kennedy leaves the audience with no neutral ground between the speaker’s cause and the “enemy.”  The choices in Kennedy’s speech are to “abolish all forms of human poverty” or “all forms of human life” and “the wonders of science” or “its terrors.”  Not only is it clear to the audience that they must make a choice, but they are also shown the right choice, which consequently is Kennedy’s cause.  Kennedy further connects the audience to the subject by using words with strong connotations, such as in “break the bonds of mass misery” and “casting off the chains of poverty.”  These words, both of which relate to slavery, cause the audience to have strong emotions against misery and poverty, and, therefore have a desire to take action.  In his Speech to the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry also uses connotations relating to the negative aspects of slavery.  Breaks in parallelism are used in this Inaugural Address, as in Bush’s speech, to emphasize points such as “push[ing] back the jungle of suspicion.”  To directly connect the audience to the subject, Kennedy presents them with the challenge of changing the world by using phrases such as “in your hands” and “now the trumpet summons us again.” 

           Kennedy’s word choice and rhetorical techniques are successful, as they leave the reader or listener with an understanding of Kennedy and his cause and a desire to face the challenges presented.  His use of directive and interpersonal diction forms a sense of global unity.  As Kennedy says, “ask…what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Diction Essay on J. F. K.’s Inaugural Address: Before

In his Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy is attempting to reach the audience and motivate them for his cause.  Thus said, Kennedy focuses on connecting his audience to both the subject (a fight for liberty, progress, and the ending of the Cold War) and the speaker (himself).  This purpose is acquired through using strategic rhetorical techniques in both directive and interpersonal diction.

            Kennedy has only recently been elected to office and it is crucial that he connects with his audience by ensuring them he is both a “fellow American” and a “fellow citizen of the world.”  Several times throughout the text, especially when introducing a new point or emphasizing a point, Kennedy uses the inclusive pronouns “we” and “us.”  This use of interpersonal diction lays the challenges not only on the world but also on himself.  In order to relate the Christian majority to America, Kennedy makes references to the “Almighty God.”  Including God in both the introduction and conclusion heightens his point of God’s importance.  This reference can be contrasted to Bush’s speech, in which the god referenced is not solely the Christian God.  Such a difference is based on the different audiences, as modern America has a greater religious diversity.  Kennedy also uses an age-old technique, also used by Henry and Bush in their speeches, of complimenting the audience so they are more willing to dedicate themselves to the speaker’s cause.  Specifically Kennedy says, “only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom” to positively set the audience aside from the rest of mankind. 

            Another important literary technique used by Kennedy as well as Bush and Henry is leaving the audience no neutral ground between the speaker’s cause and the “enemy.”  The choices in Kennedy’s speech are to “abolish all forms of human poverty” or “all forms of human life” and “the wonders of science” or “its terrors.”  Kennedy further connects the audience to the subject by using words with strong connotations, such as “break the bonds of mass misery” and “casting off the chains of poverty.”  These words, both of which relate to slavery, cause the audience to have strong emotions against this misery and poverty, and, therefore, hopefully, want to change it.  Henry in his speech to the Virginia Convention also uses the negative aspects of slavery to his advantage.  Breaks in parallelism are used, as in Bush’s speech, to emphasize points such as “push[ing] back the jungle of suspicion.”  To directly connect the audience to the subject, Kennedy present them with the challenge of changing the world by using phrases such as “in your hands” and “now the trumpet summons us again.” 

            Kennedy’s word choice and rhetorical techniques are successful, as the leave the reader or listener with an understanding of Kennedy and his cause and a desire to face the challenges presented.  His use of directive and interpersonal diction forms a sense of global unity.  As Kennedy says, “ask…what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Research Paper

Research Paper-Link to my research paper.

Letter to the Editor

This journal (9/25/07) was written as a letter to the editor in response to an article we read in class, “The Real Price of Freedom.”  The article made some really good points, and this letter is a type of personal challenge about the points that touched me most.

To the Editor:

Please let me congratulate you on the article “The Real Price of Freedom.”  The points made deserve further elaboration.  Do not our soldiers, and valiantly so, directly risk their lives for freedom?  Yet these are the same who, in a large part through torture, deny the freedom they fight for to some.  Do they die for the rights of some?  No, if we do not protect the rights of all we cannot fairly protect the rights of any.  Is the sacrifice of constant comfort and safety one to great to ask for in exchange for freedom.  If so, perhaps we are not ready for freedom.  The bells of liberty come with a price–a forced ring is not so resounding as one that is complete.  Can you not hear the laughter of irony ringing through our country?  Now is the time to forever silence its cry.  I am willing to turn in safety for freedom, are you?

Freedom isn’t Free

(9/24/07)  I think this journal had something to do with commenting on the phrase “freedom isn’t free.”  I like how mine ended up being a sort of formal stream of consciousness journal.   

“Freedom isn’t Free.”  The ultimate price for freedom, which our country has too often paid, is death.  However, we all must pay a small price for the freedom we take for granted, even if we do not realize and do not accept that price.  The people of this country are responsible for its actions, since the power flows from the people.  That is a heavy burden to bear:  the blame for failure and corruptness lands, or should land, on us all.  Yes, your one vote did not determine the people in government, but you still have the freedom to protest against and change corrupt government.  Honestly, I cannot say how much I would be willing to pay for freedom.  My freedom is not so important as the freedom of others–but what would I do to ensure their freedom?  Could I die for countless faces I do not know, perhaps even for those who are not my countrymen?  I am not sure if I could, that is why I treasure so highly those who do.

Response to Guernica

This journal (10/25/07) was written in response to the painting Guernica by Picasso.  I like this entry because I interepeted the assignment differntly than most people did. 

They are coming, can’t you hear them?  Now the dark silence of dread shivers in every corner, but soon they will come. 

They are coming, can’t you feel them? Their apathy breaks the steadfast nurture we have given our lives.

They are coming, can’t you see them?  Panic.  Their inhuman features increase the animalistic reactions.

The Sound of Victory

The assignment for this journal (10/11/07) was to write a short paragraph or poem that conveyed a sense of victory through the use of auditory imagery.  I like how this poem has a type of flow without ryhming and some of the unusual diction.    

 

The sunlight that glistened through the grew-shadow dawn

And shattered the thunderous, turbulent night

Reflected the hum of calming water,

Where a worn vessel creaked a groan-sigh of glorious relief

In harmony to the silent song of those who knew Nature’s fury

Mountain Scenery

(10/2/07)  This journal had something to do with imagery.  I like all the contradictions, they give a new spin on typical mountain scenery.

I once took a trip to the mountains, where nature is as untamed and as gentle as a mother lioness.  As I sat on the amber coolness of a rock, the river’s water biting my toes, I listened to the stillness.  Life screamed out of the silent woods, but was hushed by the roar of the unforgiving rapids around the next bend.  The mist was laden with the taste of emptiness, lingering like the ghost of a forever-present past.

Analytical Essay on A Farewell to Arms

Kirsti Ference  

Ms. Robinson

Honors English III

20 November 2007

To Think or Not to Think:  A Farewell to Cogitation

An Analytical Essay on A Farewell to Arms

            Just about anyone you ask would agree that war is heinous and inhumane, yet wars are fought continuously.  If no one wants to fight a war, how do they come to exist on such a large scale?  The answer is in manpower, and the key to manpower is the blind obedience of millions of men with the ability to look on the cruelty of war without contemplation.  Although these traits can be found in all situations, those fighting in a war tend to lean the most towards conformity and a lack of contemplation.  Lt. Fredrick Henry, the main character in Ernest Hemmingway’s A Farewell to Arms, shies from thinking for himself as a safeguard from society, an escape from reality, and a desire for comradeship.

            One of the key underlying purposes of Henry’s lack of cogitation is to avoid the rules, religion, and blame of society.  Henry shares the public consensus of the corruptness of war.  By avoiding contemplating the meaning and consequences of his actions and those of other soldiers, the protagonist attempts to shed any blame or guilt from society about the war.  Even the idea of carrying a pistol brings guilt to Henry’s heart, a guilt he handles by not thinking about it and having “no feeling at all except a vague sort of shame when [he] met English-speaking people” (29).  As in many of his attempts to solve his problems by ignoring and even conforming to what would normally plague him, Lt. Henry’s guilt is not completely resolved by his efforts.

            However, Henry’s avoidance of meditating on a deeper meaning is more successful when used as an attempt to avoid the religion thrust upon him by society.  Although he once prays in a desperate attempt to save Catherine, Henry generally has a derogatory view of religion.  For example, when Catherine gives him a Saint Anthony for luck before leaving for the front, Henry does not ponder the saint’s religious importance but rather “forgot about him” and “never found him” (44).

            Not only does the main character avoid thinking for himself in order to avoid the pressures of society, but also to avoid the feeling of loneliness.  To Henry, the easiest way to make friends is to conform, at least outwardly, to their opinions.  Instead of scolding them like most officers, Tenente Henry allows his men to voice their radical opinions.  He wishes to be accepted by them as a comrade and does not even object when Passini says, “He likes it…we will convert him” (51).  Henry outwardly acquiesces when two of his men, while they are retreating, say, “We’re all socialists…You come, Tenente.  We’ll make you a socialist too” (208).  However, most of these relationships are shallow because Henry’s conformity is external.  This outward conformity is especially shown when Henry expresses the effect of its loss by saying, “I had been in uniform a long time and I missed the feeling of being held by your clothes” (243).  One of Henry’s few true relationships is with Rinaldi, and he even seeks to maintain this friendship by avoiding introversive thinking.  He tells Rinaldi, “You are better when you don’t think so deeply” (170).  Henry’s efforts to be friendly to everyone by conforming indirectly help him to ward off the grim reality of war.  When the major warns him to “wait until the shelling is over” to bring his men food, Henry hardly realizes the risks but simply says, “They want to eat” (53).

             Likewise, the lieutenant directly escapes his pit of misery by avoiding inner thought.  Thinking too deeply only disheartens him.  While having a philosophical conversation with the priest Henry says, “Now I am depressed myself…That’s why I never think about these things” (179).  Thus, Henry’s solution is to avoid reality by not thinking about it.  While observing a pitiful and exhausted regiment marching from the front, Henry simply “sat in the high seat of the Fiat and thought about nothing” (33).  At the dire moment when Henry is injured, he takes extreme measures to avoid the shock and pain.  Not only does he forgo thinking about what is happening, but Henry’s conscious self seems to leave his body completely in a cry for help.  In the lieutenant’s words, “I felt myself rush bodily out of myself and out and out and out and all the time bodily in the wind.  I went out swiftly, all of myself” (54).  Henry goes on to admit the importance in war of shrinking from excessive thought by saying, “I knew I was dead and that it had all been a mistake to think you just died” (54).  Henry’s fear that by thinking any farther ahead than the moment he will worsen the cruel reality that surrounds him is clearly evident in this passage.

            Later in the novel, when he deserts to Switzerland, Fredrick Henry does not attempt to escape his present reality, but the past reality he faced in the earlier books of the novel.  In an effort to do this, Henry unsuccessfully attempts to change himself, externally but especially internally.  Changing his outward appearance and demeanor is simple enough, but in order to change his internal self Henry must avoid all thought, especially philosophical or contemplative, of the war or anything else that does not concern what he is doing at that moment.  One of the simplest things he does to change his appearance is grow a beard, yet he cannot even internally grasp this new person as himself.  In response to his new appearance Henry says, “I could not shadow-box in front of the narrow long mirror at first because it looked so strange to see a man with a beard boxing.  But finally I just thought it was funny” (311).  Since the war has been his life for years and is almost all that defines him, Henry begins to avoid thinking at all.  He cannot discard the uncivilized soldier for a refined tourist simply by changing his dining habits, but must also void himself of all thought.  In his own words, “They made me feel civilized…I sat on the high stool before the pleasant mahogany, the brass and the mirrors and did not think at all” (245).  However, Henry’s attempts to escape reality through internal change are unsuccessful.  In the end, he simply leaves behind the war and a dead Catherine as a void, passionless shell of a man.         

            In A Farewell to Arms, the protagonist, Lt. Fredrick Henry, resorts to conformity and a lack of cogitation in order to shirk the pressures of society, loneliness, and the grim reality of war.  Although his attempts are outwardly successful, once even convincing himself  “Maybe there wasn’t any war,” Henry’s decision to not think for himself only leaves him hollow and languid (245).  Thoughts, opinions, and philosophies define who a person is.  Leave cogitation behind, and you are simply another mindless being conformed to the routine and expectations of society.  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.