My Attitude To Same Sex Marriage
I feel that same sex marriages should be allowed because the relationship is of two loving people. How does the relationship truly differ from a relationship involving a man and a woman? Anna Quindlen expresses her feelings about same sex marriages in her essay “Evan’s Two Moms.” Her basic argument in the essay is that there is a problem that gays and lesbians face when it comes to marriage. They are not being treated equally and they feel like they are not accepted. She argues that they should be treated equally and they should have the same rights that a man and a woman have when it comes to marriage. The typical example of marriage is two people living together; sharing household and living expenses, the only thing different is that they are of the same sex.
I understand and agree with Quindlen’s argument about same sex marriage. Marriage is about compassion and love for one another; two people who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. Who are we as a society to judge the feelings of an individual? People who are gay or lesbian have it hard enough in the real world when it comes to socializing or involving themselves in any activities. “After years of being sledge-hammered by society, some gay men and lesbian women are deeply suspicious of participating in any institution that seems to have “straight world” written all over it” (Quindlen, 410). That does not seem right to me. No one should feel uncomfortable about who they are.
Quindlen states a few examples of situations people were forced to face because they had a gay or lesbian relationship. One example involves a lawyer who was planning to get married to her lesbian lover and after the state attorney general found out she was fired from her job. Another example involves a couple who wanted to participate at the Y with their children; after the workers realized that the couple was two women they were turned down and could not join. I feel that that is wrong for people to get fired or not be able to participate in activities with their children just because they are with a partner of the same sex. A big reason why some people or most people have a negative outlook about same sex marriage is because of religion. Many Americans refer to the Bible when it comes to marriage. Quindlen says that “The results were court decisions that quoted the Bible and embraced circular argument: marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman because that is how we’ve defined it” (Quindlen, 411). She also explains in her essay that today it is religious organizations that are allowing gay people to marry; how ironic is that.
I think that same sex marriage should be allowed and sooner or later it will be. In her essay she does say that if a same sex couple wants to commit to a relationship now, while it is still prohibited, there are a few complications. They cannot join their tax returns nor have health coverage for a partner who is uninsured. If a couple splits, they can’t receive child support money from the other partner. That may all change someday because the world is becoming more and more gay-friendly these days. People are more open about themselves. Same sex relationships are shown more in advertisements on television, in movies and even on radio stations. Quindlen offers a good example, stating that twenty-five years ago it was illegal for a black person to be married to a white person. “Perhaps twenty-five years from now we will find it just as incredible that two people of the same sex were not entitled to legally commit themselves to each other” (Quindlen, 411). Why should people have a problem with same sex relationships? It is not their feelings or their lives so why be concerned with it. If same sex couples love each other and want to spend their lives together, what harm is that really doing to people? “Love and commitment are rare enough; it seems absurd to thwart them in any guise” (Quindlen, 411).
Assignment Two: Syndicated Columnist Assignment
Art Buchwald, in his essay “Anchor’s Away: The Life of Walter” (2009), implies that we should move on to better things, instead of holding onto what we are losing. Buchwald provides a backstory of Walter Cronkite, who is known as the the most trusted man in America, and sarcastically implies that it will be a struggle to replace him, “the American people will have to find another person in this country that can trust. With a population of only 220 million citizens to choose from, it isn’t going to be easy”(41). Buchwald’s purpose is to invoke the idea that changing something very dear to us isn’t always bad. He establishes a relationship with his audience of television watchers who are familiar with “CBS nightly news” (2).
Art Buchwald, in his column “Le Grande Thanksgiving” (2011), challenges the idea of explaining something to a different audience. Buchwald attempts to explain the history of Thanksgiving to the French, by using French translations and humor to get his point across, “a group of Pilgrims (pelerins) who fled…where they could shoot Indians (les Peaux-Rouges) and eat turkey (dinde) to their heart’s’ content”(3). The purpose of this column is to tell a story that can be viewed from another angle. Buchwald reached out to the French and Americans who celebrate Thanksgiving, “no matter how well fed American families are, they never forget to give thanks to Kilometers Debout Ish, who made this great day possible”(56).
Art Buchwald, in his column “Goodbye, My Friends” (2006), reflects on the idea of serious topic put in a lighter situation. Buchwald makes it clear that this is his final column but he jokingly states, “there comes a time when you start adding up all the pluses and minuses of your life. In my case I’d like to add up all the great tennis games I played”(3). His purpose is to say a final goodbye to his audience while keeping his humoristic and meaningful style. Buchwald is establishing a relationship with the people who have shaped his life, people going through the same ideals, and those who are interested in his writing, “I would just like to say what a great pleasure it has been knowing all of you and being a part of your lives. Each of you has, in your own way, contributed to my life”(7).
Leonard Pitts Jr., in his article “Police Protected Their Own; Now an Innocent Women is Dead” (2018), expresses the idea of absolute power taking control. Pitts reveals a situation with former police officers, Katie Sasser and Todd Simpson, regarding the shooting of Caroline Small, “that’s because Small was white. As such, she does not fit comfortably into our national debate on police brutality…Sasser got away with murder because of that corrupted power” (28). Pitts’ purpose is to inform, that unchecked power should not include racial loyalties. He establishes a connection with people who have a position of power or is surrounded by it .
Leonard Pitts Jr., in his column “High School Nannies Shut Off Her Mic, But They Couldn’t Shut Her Down” (2018), implies that putting a limits on power, can overall magnify it. Pitts explains a situation with Lulabel Seitz, mentioning she was sexually assaulted, the school faculty unplugged her microphone and refused to let her continue. She later posted a video on Youtube and received astounding feedback, “Lulabel’s video has been viewed 335,379 times…it should be clear that the era of women suffering in silence and humiliation is over” (21). Pitts’ purpose it to make everyone’s voices be heard, no matter the situation or gender. He creates a relationship with women who go through this challenge of not being heard, and finally states,” the lesson at the moment is that things have changed. And women no longer need permission”(40).
Leonard Pitts Jr., in his article “Overwhelmed By The Thought of 8,124 Gun Deaths? Consider Only One. Then You’ll Get It” (2018) discusses the issue on gun violence and why it needs to be addressed. Pitts refers to Pati Navalta son’s death, expressing the hardship of being alive without him,”’you never understand the love that you’re capable of until you give birth to your child. And you never understand the pain that you’re until you lose a child’”(31). Pitts’ purpose to put forth the idea that without feeling the pain of just one person out of the thousands of senseless deaths, we cannot truly make it meaningful nor impactful to take action. He makes a connection with the audience by invoking the idea of losing someone in your life and compares it to the large amount of deaths total.
Anna Quindlen, in her article “Reading Has a Strong Future” (2010), stresses on the topic on how people believe books are lost art due to technology. Quindlen reviews both of the sides to the situation, books and technology, and then states “perhaps those of us who merely want to hunker down and be transported should look past both sides to concern ourselves with function instead of form”(30). Quindlen’s purpose is to make people understand that it doesn’t matter what form a book is in, it holds the same information, and it shouldn’t be just based on intellectual pleasure but rather spiritual and emotional. Quindlen forms a relationship with all book readers, old and new, and others who are well aware of this technology wave “Anton Chekhov, meet Steve Jobs”(19).
Anna Quindlen, in her column “Why Stuff Is Not Salvation” (2008), expands on American consumption and how scary it really is. Quindlen explains many bad conditions where Americans are buying too little or too much, and questions consistently, “why do we buy all this stuff?”(40). She later considers a family in Pennsylvania, at which the mother explains, “having less means her family appreciates possessions more”(59). Quindlen’s purpose is to have people question the things they buy, and realize that the little things we have are the ones with most meaning, and that’s all we really need. She relates to many people who possess many items as well as the people who don’t.
Anna Quindlen, in her article “Why Do We Pretend Parenting Is Easy?” (2009), claims that good parenting is very effective when raising a child, and that many parents are forced to make it look easy. Quindlen examines two studies with parents and their kids and found that most parents believe that “parents who don’t feel happy or competent are made to feel like freaks-and to just keep quiet about the fact” (34). Disappointed with this idea of parents acting “uniformly joyful”, Quindlen’s purpose is to inspire parents to be more truthful about the overwhelming parenting job, and become more accepting to discover ways to support other people who are trying to become parents themselves. Quindlen creates a connection with people who are familiar with parenthood and the ones who are considering it.
A Definition Of A Home: How Did It Change According To Anna Quindlen
Homelessness can be defined as an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and or adequeate residence. This basically means that you and or your family do not have a constant place of residence. You do not own or have a designated place to stay that you can truly call yours. Anna Quindlen’s essay explains how the definition of a home has changed and how people values have changed over time. It also explains the difference between not having a home and being homeless.
Anna had met a woman in the Port Authority subway in NYC. She was trying to interview the woman because she thought that the woman was homeless. The woman then goes to show Anna that she isn’t homeless and shows Anna a bunch of pictures of places she has lived. This shows that people’s values are different and how the definition of a home has changed. Anna states, “You are where you live, she was somebody.” This to me means that because the woman she met had pictures of places she called home, that means the she knows she belongs there. Those pictures are of places of her past where she lived. Places she called home. This woman may have lived in a hundred different locations but they were all home to her because of her lifestyle.
Anna also states in her essay, “Home is where the heart is.” That person had certain moments and experiences in each of those locations that she considers each one her home. The woman states, “she was just passing by.” To that proclaimed to be homeless woman, her staying in a subway for two weeks might be considered a vacation or a travel break until she finds another place to call home. A lot has changed in today’s society. Back in the day people used to grow, harvest their own food, cook and sleep in the same area. They had to fend for themselves. But as technology and society develops so does luxuries in life. We now have washing machines and dry cleaning. We now have grocery stores and different places where other people provide services to accommodate people’s needs for goods. You don’t have to own a house or apartment for that place to be considered a home. You don’t have to cook or clean or do laundry in one location for a place to be called a home. Now just a room or a shared room that you can decorate and make it how u want is considered a home. It all depends on the life style you want to achieve. Its more of a felling than an object now. I believe that home is a word that is used as a feeling. When it used to be considered a house or physical establishment. This proves also proves Anna’s statement,” Home is where the heart is.” It is where you feel it is. It is what you make it. A home is place of memories and a place where you feel comfort. Just because you dont have your own bathroom, or kitchen or living room doesn’t mean where you stay isn’t a home. If you are comfortable with your living situation and your comfortable with where you sleep at ngith that is your home.
I believe that Annas most effective evidence would have to be,” sometimes we think we would be better off if we forgot about the broad strokes and concentrated on the details. Basically we need to see the bigger picture. We shouldn’t judge people in todays society the same as we would have in the past. Thigns are different now and times have changed. Sometimes peoples homes change to accomidate the life style they want to achieive. If your goal in life is to travel the world and help people then technically the world is your home. As each now project arrises you also rise to the occasion to help. Another example is if you and your boyfriend decided to get married and have a baby and you live in a one bed room, you would move to accomidate your new lifestyle. Maybe move to a better location to raise your child and get a bigger house.Everyones lifesytles are different which also makes everyones homes different. As society grows and techniology enchances and expands. The opportunity for humans does also. Instead of only having the option to grow up in a small town and work on a farm or one day take over the family business, now you can move out the country. Live in japan or volunteer in Africa. We are now ina world with almost endless possibilities. The only thing holding you back isn’t societys undevelopment it is only you and the decisions that you make. You choose weather you want to live on the streets, have a family and a house, owna business.People don’t judge you as much anymore. Society has come long way from slavery, to gay rights. Men and woman beign equal. Old customs are drifting away, which allows people to widen their horizons and create their own lifesytles and and what they feel and want to be considerd home. Just becaseu the definition of a hoem ahd changed doesn’t meant aht is doesn’t exist any more. It just exist ina new form.
An Issue Of Money Spending In “Stuff is Not Salvation” And “On Dumpster Driving” Texts
In the “Stuff is Not Salvation” by Anna Quindlen, she talks about how people in America get carried away and spend their money on ridiculous things. They need to realize what they spend their money on and what impacts occur because of their decisions. Anna Quindlen is completely against people wasting their money. She goes to futher explain the different between what you actually need and what you don’t need at all. She also goes to explain that you really don’t need to buy expensive items to impress other people. In the text “On Dumpster Driving” by Lars Eighner talks about how people spending their money just to be wastful. Both authors are correct. Why spend money on ridiculous things that they don’t even need.
People think the stuff they buy will change their lives, but they don’t realize that they are being inconcerated because why waist money on something that somebody else can really use cause your not going to do nothing but throw it out. Just because the advertisements make it seem intersated, and inresitable, doesn’t mean you need to buy it! When people waste money on unnecessary stuff it shows that it is easy to sell anything. There are way more important things to buy for example, school, food, shelter etc. It’s okay to buy nice thing and take care of yourself but people shouldn’t go overboard and buy expensive items that you don’t need, or can get cheaper.
People shoul priorities their decisions better because they are wasting money that can be invested into something smart, or safer. So basically spending money to waste the belongings, and still won’t be happy. If people just thought about their decisions more and realize what can occur from spending their money. In the text, “On Dumpster Driving” by Lars Eighner, Eighner talks about how people throw out valuable things after spending their money on it.
“Stuff is Not Salvation” (Quindlen) she says “does anybody really need a flat screen, or a designer handbag”? In other words, she is saying was buying that flat screen worth it , are your bills paid, food on your table ect. When they buy all that stuff , they still aren’t going to be happy. People should think about if the items they are about to buy are going to be useful and helpful. In the text, “On Dumpster Driving” (Eighner) he explains that people just waste their money on things they don’t need and once they get tired of it, he finds it in the dumpster. If it ends up in the dumpster and it’s not food that you brought, they wasted their money because they didn’t need it in the first place, now did you.
Both authors have a connection. They show that people waste their money on unnesccary items, Anna Quindlen shows how people think they need something when it’s not important so all they want to do is spend their money on things and throw it out when they get tired of it. The way that connects with Lars Eighner is that he was a dumpster diver and he would find as he said “perfectly new” things that people just waste. He explains how sefish people are when they just waste stuff that other people in the world can’t even have because they don’t have the money to afford. I completely agree with both of the authors in each text because I know there is a difference between wanting something and needing it. Americans whom understand the difference are most likely to be the people who are smart with their money and can control themselves.
Driving to the Funeral by Anna Quindlen: an Argument Against Under-age Driving
In the article “Driving to the Funeral,” author Anna Quindlen presents a powerful argument against under-age driving. In this article, Quindlen’s goal is to persuade her readers that we should increase the minimum driving age. It focuses on high school students who fail to graduate due to the fact that they lost their lives in car accidents while driving inexperienced and recklessly.
According to Quindlen ‘car crashes are the number 1 cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds in this country’ (Quindlen 2007). Not only this is an issue but the age of drinking is an issue as well. Adding drinking along with driving can turn a good night into a nightmare. Young teens just don’t appear to be mature enough for driving safe and making good decisions, such as an 18-year-old or older would.
Throughout the article, Quindlen uses ideology to make parents question their decision to allow their 16-year-old to drive. To reinforce her idea she says that “Any reasonable person would respond that a 13-year-old is too young to drive. But statistics suggest that’s true of a 16-year-old as well” (Quindlen 2007). Obviously, no parent in their right mind would give their 13-year-old the keys to the cars because it not only puts the child at risk but other people as well.
The author uses statistics early on in the article she says that “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that neophyte drivers of 17 have about a third as many accidents as their counterparts only a year younger” (Quidlen 2007). She chooses to cite a well known, reliable source, to convince parents how big an impact it is to wait a year before letting their teenagers drive.
Another detail she uses regarding the difference between the United States of America and other nations. She says European nations are tough on driving regulations and licensing provisions. She emphasizes age, responsibility, and safety.
However, she turns their argument around by saying, “The only ones who wouldn’t make a fuss are those parents who have accepted diplomas at graduation because their children were no longer alive to do so themselves, whose children traded freedom and mobility for their lives” (Quidlen 2007). She has to, in a sense, persuade her reader by hitting them where it hurts most.
In conclusion, the author’s general argument appears to be highly effective because she uses strong points and supporting evidence. Quindlen was very convincing in how she takes advantage of the strong emotional attachment that her parent readers have for their beloved teenagers. Overall, I think the author accomplished what she intended to when she wrote the article. She effectively communicates that in order to save the lives of the younger generation, the legal age must change.
The Importance of Personal Writing in Write for Your Life by Anna Quindlen
Anna Quindlen’s Write for Your Life begins with the movie ‘Freedom Writers’, in which teacher Erin Gruwell deals with the difficulties of teaching to a class of disconnected inner-city students by handing out “marbled composition books and the assignment to write their lives, ungraded, unjudged’. Ms. Quindlen then shows Gruwell’s ways to connect with these students by allowing them to freely express themselves through writing and explained it as being a means of “therapy” for them. Gruwell then explains what she sees as a major problem in modern society: the end of ‘everyday prose’. Instead of just summarizing the film, Quindlen chose to use a several examples of dialogue from students in the movie of what was in their journals, this really helps to make the characters feel as real as possible to the reader and to get the reader to experience and understand their situations. This leaves a lasting impact on the reader because the very matter-of-fact tone of each quote and is very effective because it shocks the audience, one that really stood out to me was ‘If you pull up my shirtsleeves and look at my arms, you will see black and blue marks.’ This really paints a picture in the readers mind.
To begin, Quindlen argues that personal writing is very important as we try to understand the world. She uses several persuasive techniques like citing reports and referencing films and text. The story is well organized with a clear focus. Quindlen begins with textually analyzing the film Freedom Writers and explains that “writing can make pain tolerable”. She then argues why society has moved away from this type of writing. Using the film in this example helps to support her claim that “[writing…[makes] the self stronger”. Quindlen also uses another persuasive technique, she builds a stronger appeal to emotion when she mentions 9/11. She mentions the touch senses and the importance of physical writing rather than an internet post or text with a cell phone.
Furthermore, I believe Quindlen’s purpose is very clear, people now do not write personally anymore and that is a problem for society. Her audience is people, most likely students, growing up in the technology age and don’t get their emotions out by writing their thoughts down. My stance on this topic is: I think Quindlen is genuine in her belief that people are not wring personally anymore but I believe she has missed a large part of personal writing, blogging and other social media. When you think of blogs the first thing that might come to mind is political blogs, but many blogs and other social medias are online journals that detail the daily thoughts and experiences of the writer. ‘Words on paper confer a kind of immortality,’ Quindlen writes. But I believe sometimes electronic post can be more effective, online post can be shared with a much larger audience much faster and easier. You don’t have to wait to get your work published or be a creditable author all you need is a keyboard, or a cell phone and you can reach hundreds, thousands or even millions of followers or maybe just your close friends.
To conclude, I believe Anna Quindlen made an excellent argument and used effective persuasive techniques including citing reports, referencing, ethos and using the film painted an excellent picture in my mind and compelled a strong message, but Ms. Quindlen seems to be unaware of the world of online post and blogs. I think if she were to learn a bit more on the vastness of the internet blog scene, she might change her mind on this topic.
Consumerism and Materialism in on Dumpster Diving and Stuff is not Salvation
We are living in a world where it is more important to own an iPhone 11, than to have a plate of food in our homes. Lars Eighner and Anna Quindlen have both written personal essays about consumerism and materialism. In Eigner’s personal essay “On Dumpster Diving” he portrays how he can make a living by searching dumpsters, and how people don’t acknowledge things that are yet helpful and important. Likewise, Quindlen’s essay “Stuff is Not Salvation” touches on the contemporary issue in regards to the increasing number of individuals who invest crazy amount of money on stuff that they don’t need. The message that both writers give are similar, however they use different ways to develop their claim. Although some individuals are controlled buyers, most of the american society let consumerism and materialism get over their head, and they start buying stuff to fit into a classified society as well as to hide themselves from reality.
In Anna Quindlen essay “Stuff is Not Salvation” she discusses how Americans are wasting large amounts of money in stuff that have no meaning. In “Stuff is Not Salvation” by Anna Quindlen, Quindlen writes “A critical difference between then and now is credit” (426). Therefore the benefits and convenience of utilizing credit cards often make individuals purchase new products that they cannot afford. People regularly binge spend on consumer goods utilizing credit cards, which could even result in a massive debt. Quindlen also mentions “A person in the United States replaces a cell phone every 16 months, not because the cell phone is old, but because it is oldish” (427). This quote infers that Americans are not only buying stuff without having the money for it, but that they will also throw out products after a certain period of time. People often think that because a new phone was released there is a need to replace that phone with the new one, they start thinking that this new phone has a better camera and battery because that is the image that the companies portray; big companies like Apple and Samsung have created amazing advertisement for people to go crazy and buy their products no matter what the situation of that person might be. Overall, Quindlen encourages her readers/audience to ponder the things that they purchase.
In Lars Eighner personal essay “On Dumpster Diving” he uses his personal experiences as a scavenger to prove his audience that what they might find as trash he might look at it as gold. According to Lars Eighner “Students throw food away around breaks because they do not know whether it has spoiled or will spoil before they return” (280). Eighner emphasizes this in his personal essay because the food that college students throw out thinking that it might be expired or that it will soon, is what fills up his stomach most of the time. He often finds food in good condition for his dog and for him to eat, and that shows us how our society throws out a bunch of food that are still in good quality just because they might see it damage. Another example found in Eigner’s piece is “In particular they tend to throw everything out when they move at the end of the semester, before and after breaks, and around midterms, when many of them despair of college” (280). This means that college students are not only throwing out food, but many other stuff like computers, paper, school supplies, among many other things. And most of the time students are throwing stuff out because there might be a new product that just came out, for example, a new computer so they had to throw the oldish one out to buy the new one and try to fit between the other classmates. Overall, it’s seen how one person’s trash is another person’s treasure, which is exactly how Eighner’s feel.
In both essays, Eighner and Quindlen both write how a large number of individuals dismiss things that are still in good condition, and they also support how people don’t appreciate things that still work. Anna Quindlen observes in “Stuff is Not Salvation”, “I looked into my closet the other day and thought, why did I buy all this stuff?” (427). This demonstrates how young people get a bunch of crap for no reason, which they end up regretting or thinking about it after they have it for a long time. And since the product was bought just to show off to friends, and now they are not as trendy the question of “why did I buy this?” comes into place. Similarly, Lars Eigher mentions in his essay, “Even respectable employed people will sometimes find something tempting sticking out of a dumpster or standing beside one” (278). This shows how much stuff is being thrown out and as a result even people who have a job are becoming more addicted to having more things in their houses, since they find products that could fit into their homes where they already have a bunch of crap. Finally, both Eighner and Quindlen shows us that we buy things that we desire and don’t really need.
The Topic of Mental Health in the C Word in the Hallway by Anna Quindlen
In her vehement article, ‘The C Word in the Hallway”, Anna Quindlen addresses and exploits the issue of mental health in children and the ignorance that trails behind it. Quindlen utilizes pathos, ethos, and logos as well as multiple accounts of extended metaphors and repetition in order to urge parents, caregivers, and even teenagers to stop undermining the extremities of mental health and to start acknowledging it as a treatable illness. Her use of explicit and straightforward diction and criticism evokes a disappointed and indignant tone, essentially placing the blame on naïve parents.
Quindlen commences her article with, “The saddest phrase I’ve read in a long time is this one: psychological autopsy.” Considering that her work was published in the Newsweek and she is well known for her columns and commentary in The New York Times, this statement alone elicits an emotional response from her audience and aids in her attempt to build credibility. For Quindlen to undoubtedly state that out of all her years of writing and observing, this statement is the most upsetting that she’s heard, carries a lot of weight. Quindlen uses this observation to strengthen her claim that mental health is not being taken as seriously as it should be. Her use of this statement and the outspoken diction that follows it, reveals an upsetting tone directed at the doctors that are trained to find these issues in children. They simply shrug it off and perform psychological autopsies for suicides or homicides that, with proper treatment, could have been prevented. As Quindlen says “it has become commonplace to have…murder suspects with acne problems,” she has a demeaning tone that has now guilted her audience into realizing how normal and nonchalantly mental health is treated at home and at school, calling on them to actively change that.
To stress the heartbreaking reality of this issue, Quindlen shifts to real life examples in which mental health was neglected and produced appalling results. When including the accounts of the killings performed by Sam Manzie and Kip Kinkel, she substantially makes her audience recognize that these children shouldn’t be held accountable for the crimes that they have committed. Quindlen believes that Manzie and Kinkel were not the perpetrators, but the victims of untreated psychological issues. Quindlen deliberately mentions that both children did receive psychological evaluations before their misdeeds, however due to their parents’ insensitivity, their issues were not thoroughly treated. As she notes this, Quindlen reiterates the need for her audience to truly accept that mental health is necessary for children’s sanity. She particularly refers to the male concern of masculinity in both children and adults. Quindlen mentions, “Kinkel’s father made no secret of his disapproval of therapy… speaks sad volumes about our peculiar standards of masculinity,” and towards the end, “[Boys] still suspect that talk therapy, or even heartfelt talk, is sissified, weak.” By mentioning this, her male readers are inclined to be more cognitive about how they influence each other regarding important topics such as mental health. Quindlen’s use of these accounts appeals emotionally to her audience by instilling fear on them. Quindlen brings awareness to the relevancy of this topic and the common “excuses, excuses” that is said following the mention of mental health in association with homicides and mass shootings. Her candid tone justifies that mental illness is not used as an excuse, but as an underrated condition that could develop into one’s ruin.
Towards the end of her editorial, Quindlen provides her audience with an extended metaphor that truly ties her ideas together. “The most optimistic estimate is that two thirds of these emotionally disturbed children are not getting any treatment. Imagine how we would respond if two thirds of America’s babies were not being immunized.” Because immunization is deemed as important and expected for babies, this comparison allows the audience to finally understand the purpose of Quindlen’s argument and the magnitude and impact that untreated mental illness carries on society. This metaphor directly appeals to the parents of those who are mentally disturbed; a rational parent would never think to send their child out into the world without immunizations. Similarly, a rational parent would not be making the right decision by sending their child into the world without being treated for their mental illness. The logical reasoning behind this analogy fulfills Quindlen’s purpose of bringing awareness to the important, yet overlooked, topic of mental health.
Throughout her cogent and candid article, Quindlen urges the oblivious and naïve parents to stop being ignorant towards the idea of mental illness and to overlook the stigma that is often associated with it. She successfully brings awareness to this issue by audaciously condemning society for its continuous use of the C word in the hallway, crazy. Quindlen casts parents, educators, politicians, and even children, on a course in which change will be implemented and the mental health of society will be top priority. Anna Quindlen’s 1999 feature in Newsweek is indeed still relevant today and has paved the way for the nation to make a change in its approach to mental health.
Driving to the Funeral by Anna Quindlen. Rhetorical Analysis
Anna Quindlen’s “Driving to the Funeral” first appeared in the magazine Newsweek in 2007. In this essay Quindlen aims to convince her readers that we should lower the drinking age and raise the driving age. Depending on what state you live in the driving age begins at 16, 17 or 18. When teenagers turn one of these ages they expect to start driving that instant. Parents at the time feel relieved that their children can start shuttling themselves around, moms do not have to drop them off at school, pick them up, take them to the movies or sports practice any longer. After reading this essay, I was shocked by the amount of teenage car accidents that are not alcohol related but simply from speeding and having passengers in the car with them. After a close analysis of the No. 1 death rate among teenagers it reveals contradictions between the article’s call for raising the driving age and lowering the drinking age. Descriptions, statistics and comparisons are methods that are used to create a powerful, persuasive essay.
In the essay, “Driving to the Funeral” the writer discusses how every teenager experiences the same things throughout high school. We all take the SAT’s, study for exams, go to prom, and for some unfortunately attend funerals. Driving in high school appears to be both an advantage for the child and the parent. Teenagers feel more responsible being able to drive while parents are glad not leave work early to pick their kids up and shuttle them around town after a hard days of work. However, is losing a child at such a young age better then having to take off of work earlier to drop them off at practice? Quindlen’s main point in this essay is to raise the driving age, she wants her readers to try and get together with the government to raise the legal driving age like some states already have.
In the introduction Quindlen begins her essay with a description of how every teenager goes through high school experiencing and dealing with the same exact things and how parents are just as relieved as the teenager to begin driving. This establishes the essay as a description and uses the pathos technique. It is simply a fantastic way to capture the reader’s attention. “Driving to the Funeral” is an excellent example of pathos; the essay makes bold statements about, “the only ones who wouldn’t make a fuss are those parents who have accepted diplomas because their children were no long alive to do so themselves…they might think it was worth the wait” (Quindlen 432). Quindlen says these strong emotional statements to get you think, what if that were my child? Another description in the essay explains how parents are more then joyful to not have to shuttle their children around anymore and to finally have time for themselves, “ a licensed son or daughter relieves parents of the relentless roundelay of driving to the soccer field, Mickey D’s, mall and movies” (Quindlen 433). Descriptions such as these give the reader an opportunity to relate with their own personal experiences as a child or an adult and to have their emotions tousled.
Not only does Quindlen use description but she also uses background information and statistics as well. In her first point we see her use this by her affirming, “Car crashes are the No. 1 cause of death among 15 to 20 year olds in the country” (Quindlen 432). She later goes onto how society thought the problem of teen deaths was cured by the government in 1984 by raising the drinking age from 18 to 21, yet there is no proof to show us that it actually made a difference. A teen driving is not about them going out and partying and deciding to drink and drive but in fact about how mature and capable a teen driver really is. She believes that “the use of seat belts and airbags may have as much to do with that as penalties for alcohol use” (Quindlen 435). That all the government has done by lower the drinking age is cause teenagers to “pre-game” before going out. Quindlen later goes on to mention that, “In a survey of young drivers, only half said that had seen a peer drive after drinking… nearly all however witnessed speeding, which is the leading factor in fatal crashes by teenagers today” (Quindlen 435). Quindlen appears to believe that adults are targeting the wrong D in drunk driving. “In Massachusetts alone, one third of 16 year-old drivers have been involved in serious accidents” (Quindlen 436), the writer lists several more serious statistics about teen driving. By the writer providing its readers with these statistics it effects peoples mind by showing them information they may not have known before and it gets people to start to really question what is best for teenage drivers. We learn something new everything day and reading this essay can teach society something as well. However, through effective statistics Quindlen leaves her readers to logically infer that underage drinking is not the problem among teenagers but the fact that teens drive above the speed limit is.
Quindlen captures the reader’s interest first with the introductory descriptions and statistics, she then begins using comparison. She focuses on the idea that too young is too young. “Any reasonable person would respond that a 13 year-old is too young… statistics suggest that that’s true for 16 year-olds as well” (Quindlen 434). Comparisons such as these lead Quindlen into one of her strongest points that – “… 17 year olds have about one third as many accidents as their counterparts only a year younger” (Quindlen 434). Midway through the essay the writer adds contrast to some of her points. A significant comparison and contrast that Quindlen uses is by showing the difference of how some states have passed laws that a teen driver cannot drive without an adult until they are 18. Proving that in some states such as New
Jersey, this has made a significant impact but however in other states it has not made a difference.
Although Quindlen presents her proof in a fashionable order, we should believe her because she proves to her readers she is trustworthy. We see this as she provides the reader with descriptions and the large quantity of statistics to backup herself up. This allowed her to create a specifically designed essay that was beneficial in helping her present her ideas. She leaves her readers being able to connect to a real-life situations as I did. For instance, when I turned sixteen I was more then excited to start driving on my own, however that later changed when I lost my best friend. On September 23, 2010 Morgan Crofton was killed in a car accident she was only 19 years old. Unfortantly we only got to experience exactly one month of college together before she left me and all her other friends at Florida Gulf Coast University. There were five teens in the car and she was the only one to pass away. This experience was so tragic for everyone, her family, friends and people who could related. Having your own friend pass away from a car accident at such a young age makes you think about things differnetly and wonder if the government really should raise the driving age to prevent other families from dealing with such a tragedy. The writer herself seems to be concerned about her own two kids as well, Christopher and Maria (biography), she does not want to be one of the mothers watching her child be buried as a teen.
Throughout this essay Quindlen’s main point was to convice her readers that society should do something as a group and decide to raise the driving age and lower the drinking age. From the statistic she provides us with raising the driving age will cut down on the teen car accidents and deaths among 15 to 20 year olds. And by lowering the drinking age it will provide more ease on college campuses. The argument she presents us with appears to be extremely strong not only does she provide the statistics, but several million friends and families are able to agree with her based on their own personal experience of losing a teen. Meanwhile it may not appear to be as effective to those who have not lost a teenager, but facts are facts and that is what she provides us with.
The Effect of Using Monologue in Essay Exposition (all My Babies Are Gone Now by Anna Quindlen)
An analysis of the Quindlen’s article, “All My Babies are Gone” shows that monologue is the main literary device that she has used in the exposition of the article. Since this article describes Quindlen’s personal experiences in bringing up her three children, monologue as an exposition too is quite effective in this article; Quindlen uses monologue throughout the essay in communicating her intended message. This paper analysis Quindlen’s use of monologue as an exposition device, the paper gives various examples of how Quindlen has used this device to give her intended views the background information of the experiences that she narrates in her article.
The paper concludes with a concise summary of the main points in the essay. To begin with, Quindlen begins her article by explaining her feelings for successfully bringing up her children into young adults. Quindlen says, “All my babies are gone now. I say this not in sorrow but in disbelief. I take great satisfaction in what I have today:…”. In this quotation, Quindlen gives a perfect exposition of her feelings through the use of monologue. The exposition of her feelings helps the reader to understand the feelings of Quindlen motivated her to write the essay.
The use of monologue as a literary device helped Quindlen to connect her audience with her background feelings that motivated her to write the article. In explaining the background of her parenting experience and the writers whose ideas influenced how she brought up her children, Quindlen narrates in monologue the many books she read, she says, “Everything in all the books I once pored over is finished for me now. Penelope leach, T. Berry Brazelton, Dr. Spock.”. This quotation is an exposition on how Quindlen learnt parenting skills so as to be able to bring up her children well. In this exposition, Quindlen uses monologue to communicate her message. This, therefore, is another perfect example of how Quindlen uses monologue as a device of exposition in this article.
In discussing the differences between modern parenting skills and traditional parenting skills, Quindlen gives an exposition of the background of the background of parenting methods. Quindlen writes, “When my first child was born, parents were told to put baby to bed on his belly so that he would not choke on his own spit-up. By the time my last arrived, babies were put down on their backs because of research on sudden infant death syndrome”. This exposition is done in form of monologue. The exposition is quite important because it helps the readers to understand the background and the history of the evolution of parenting skills. The use of monologue as a literary device helps Quindlen to make this exposition in a very effective way.
Another example of how Quindlen uses monologue as a device of exposition in this article is when she talks about the need for parents to trust themselves. Quindlen wrtes, “ Eventually you must learn to trust yourself. Eventually the research will follow. I remember 15 years ago poring over one of Dr. Brazelton’s wonderful books on child development, in which he describes three sorts of infants: average, quiet, and active…” In this exposition, Quindlen was unsure of the whether she was bringing up her children in the right way. This uncertainty is what drove her to read widely on the subject of parenting. Despite the extensive readings, however, Quindlen could not get a book that could satisfactorily answer all her questions on parenting. Eventually, despite her uncertainties, the children grew up well into healthy adults. For this reason, Quindlen is advising parents to trust themselves that the skills that they are employing in bringing up their children are effective and will lead to good results.
To pass across this important message, Quindlen makes an exposition of her experiences in upbringing that taught her to trust herself in bringing up her children. Monologue is employed as the literary device to make this exposition. Another instance in which Quindlen makes an exposition through the use of monologue is when she explains how humbling the parenting experience is. Quindlen says, “ Every part of raising children is humbling. Believe me, mistakes were made. They have all been enshrined in the ‘ Remember-When-Mom-Did’ All of fame. The outburst, the temper tantrums, the bad language-mine, not theirs. The times the baby fell off the bed. The times I arrived late for preschool pickup. The nightmare sleepover…”.
In this exposition, Quindlen explains, through the use of monologue, the various humbling experiences that she went through in the process of bringing up her children. The main reason why bringing up children is a humbling experience is because of the many mistakes that one is bound to make in the process of bringing up his/her children. Quindlen uses this exposition to shore up her claim that bringing up children is indeed a very humbling experience. The use of monologue in explaining her own humbling experiences in bringing up her children is very effective in communicating the intended message, i.e. bringing up children is a humbling experience. Quindlen, again, makes an exposition, through the use of monologue in explaining the need for parents to live in the moment as they bring up their children. Quindlen says. “ But the biggest mistake I made is the one that most of us make while doing this. I did not live in the moment enough. This is particularly clear now that the moment is gone, captured only in the photographs”.
The main reason of this exposition is to make parents to live in the moment, and to enjoy being with their children as they bring them up. To communicate this important message effectively to her audience, Quindlen makes an exposition of her experiences that taught her to live in the moment. The use of monogue as literary device helped Quindlen to explain her experiences in a very clear way. In conclusion, a critical analysis of this article by Quindlen shows that the main literary device used in the expositions in this article is monologue. The main reason why monologue is used in this article is that, as a literary device, monologue is quite effective in explaining one’s experiences. Since the majority of the expositions used in this article are about explain personal experiences, monologue as literary device, therefore, is the most suitable literary device to make these expositions.