Disturbia Character Analysis

I believe Ronnie, Kale's best friend, was an overlooked but well-played character. Much like a real friend, he'd do anything to help those he cares for. He is the kind of person that one would get in trouble with often whle growing up, giving him a realistic feel. He also has humorous qualities that are constantly seen from friends in our own lives. While most of the characters were generally serious most of the time, he provided the humor in some scenes. For these reasons, I believe he was an authentic character.

"Aren't I a Woman?"Lit. Response

Sojourner Truth does a good job in basically every aspect of “Aren’t I a Woman?” She used strong physical language, she was a speaker that was very good with this. Not only did she have good movement, Truth also had evidence that related back into her life and the lives of those around her. Her appeals to logic, emotion, and humanity proved to be effective in this speech. She had come from a tough position that gave her these life experiences and enough proof to argue against her accusers and use their own words against them. Her speaking was a lot more colorful than other blacks in the time period, or women in general.
Throughout the speech, she had an example for just about everything, often using her own body as the proof. She would give tell of things that happened to other women, who were all right, then she asked why she wasn’t treated the same. It’s an effective appeal to emotion, because this is the way we would all want to be treated, as what we are no matter what color we are. Truth never specifically brings up the race argument, because she knows it isn’t one that would prove her point. She doesn’t just fight for black rights, she fights for women too. Any argument she used was proven using real-life evidence. An ethos appeal is given off from this. Since she has been through all of this and isn’t on the other side of the argument, she has established credibility in the subject.
Truth said that the intellect of a person has nothing to do with their rights. She gave an example, the same one a minister used, about a cup being able to hold more than hers. She thought it was only right for the person with more to share. I believe this means that someone with more knowledge and earnings should give to those who have less ability. This is one problem I came across when reading Truth’s speech. The speech loses some of the timelessness because some people of today won’t understand it. It worked effectively on those f her time, however. They were the ones she was speaking to and wanted to change. So even this problem leaves her with a strong speech centered around rights.
She established eye contact with those who were against her, and sometimes pointed at them too. This brought them into the argument, and it was an intimidating idea to be pointed out in a large crowd. She could use the crowd as an advantage and while the accused was off guard she could use their words against them and tell them exactly why they are wrong. When Sojourner did this, she left few gaps or holes for them to argue back against. This left them virtually silent. This technique can also give credibility to a speaker. The ability to make those that come against you become silent is a sign of power.
Truth did a good job on this possibly impromptu speech. However, the ending could have been made better. She simply ended by saying she had nothing else to say, when she should have ended with the last statement she made that gave her the long applause. Though the ending may have been weak, the part before it was still effective throughout. Sojourner left very little to argue against, could keep the audience’s attention, and gave an example for every argument she brought up. There are few things that could have been done to make this speech better.

"Learning to Read and Write" Literary Response

Michael Mullen
Ms. Brown
Ap English III
10/22/08

Frederick Douglass did a very good job in his essay titled ‘Learning to Read and Write’. He did this by establishing his central claims, elaborating, and giving evidence to back up what he was saying. The imagery he used was easily understood, and he explained the process in a precise and easily understood way. It was a nonfictional narrative story, an autobiography on part of his life, and I believe his style in this essay reflects that.
When reading an essay like this, I would never expect to see many similes and metaphors at all, and there were none that stood out. This is because Douglass wanted the reader to focus on his process, which he wrote in order of how he did it. This is his central contention, he first told of how he learned the alphabet, then he gave details on how that turned out. Afterwards he gave his source of knowledge to read from the alphabet that he was taught, he gave details and elaborated after this. Finally, he told the readers how he learned how to write. He explained this as one of the more difficult skills, but got it done. He rarely went outside of the main topic, but when he did it still related to the story. In a way, it made the story more readable. Instead of just reading of his outside life, he told of what was going on I his brain as well, while all of this knowledge was pushed in.
He wrote a simple essay and didn’t add any figurative language to bring some color to it. I believe this is because he wanted to entertain the reader with his learning process, so they may be able to follow the same process as well. If Douglass were to put in too much figurative language, it would have been harder to comprehend. Instead of immediately knowing what he was trying to say, we would have to decipher the metaphor he made instead. The real purpose of the essay may have been overlooked if he did this.
The text has a serious tone, one that brings the reader through the process of learning with Douglass. He wrote it perfectly for the audience, which could be people of many ages because of the style and its simplicity. Emotionally, Douglass gave a lot to this piece. He told the burden of his knowledge of as a black slave, and how he knew his chances of being set free were low. He looked onto the free white boys with envy at times, wishing to be in their place, and the reader can understand why. Instead of learning in a school like they do he is forced to sneak around and get a second person education. He has to learn from other children that have recently learned the subject themselves. The reader feels sorrow for Douglass, who was born into slavery and never got a good chance to learn anything at all, since slaves could not be taught to read or write. In the end, the reader is proud though because he can use this basic knowledge to keep learning. The greatest credibility is the text itself. It proves that Douglass learned to read and write. Throughout the entire essay, he gave this proof. And since it is so well written, it is good proof. He gave the best credibility he could have in the situation and established his claim to be true.
Overall, Douglass wrote an elaborate essay that provided well thought out details and facts. He proved his title by writing the essay by itself. He gave proof that cannot be disproved, so the reader would have to believe him. He did all of this with little or no use from figurative language, reflecting his style and personality. It was a well written essay and I saw no flaws in it or ways to make it better.

Self-Reliance

As the title reads, this essay is about self reliance. It explains to the reader that their opinion and point of view is as important to the masses’. But it also says that no one wants their own point of view known because it is different from the masses and they will be alienated by it. The author’s main idea is to trust yourself before anyone else. He elaborates by using ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the essay. Not only does he use these literary tools, he also uses diction and figurative language.
He brings about pathos throughout many parts of the essay. Because the author, Emerson, tells us that even our opinions are important, we feel better about ourselves. He grabs our attention at this time and continues to appeal to our emotions by saying we hide our thoughts because we are afraid of denial. Most humans are quick to deny this claim, but since he appealed to our emotion we have to think about it more. Encouraging us to stay firm to our beliefs no matter the opposition is the action he reveals for us to take. Even if the whole world is against us, if we believe it is right, then fight for it. This is the point Emerson brings up using this argument. Ethos can be seen in this as well. No one wants to be seen as an outsider and left alone, but Emerson says it’s okay to do this. This is another way Emerson gives the readers a way out of the problem he says they have.
Logically, it would make sense to express our own thoughts and opinions instead of hiding within a group, this is what Emerson argues. As he says, good and bad are just transferable names, so who can say you are incorrect? This appeal to logos opens the door for a new approach from the author. Emerson explains why you should not be quick to listen to and follow one of higher education, because they are not necessarily smarter or know better. Since we live in a world of different opinions and ideas, who is to know what is right or wrong. This is simple logos the author uses. I feel that another logos would have worked better, because the logos of right and wrong can possibly be established in the Bible for those with religious views. Those readers would have lost interest by then. Not only is right or wrong a logos appeal, it is also another appeal at emotions. Humans almost always want to do the right thing, but often we do not know exactly what the right thing is. Emerson tells us what the right action to take is. He tells us in his opinion. I think this is effective for those who really don’t know what to do. They would likely be quick to listen if they are one of the mass of people he described.
Not only does the author speak of the problem, he tells of how he was there before, and still slips up at times. He now has credibility in the subject, because very few would listen unless they knew that he was an expert in the field. He used a common form of appeal that can still be seen today. Much like people that have turned away from crime talk to children to keep them away from it, he talks to people and tells them how he got away from a problem. This too is another appeal at pathos. Emotionally many may feel as though they cannot get out of the problem, but seeing someone in front of them who already has may make them think differently. Think of it like this. If a married couple that smoked and wanted to quit felt as though they couldn’t, but one of them did in front of the other, it’s much easier for the other to quit. Seeing the ‘impossible’ done right before your eyes can change your whole mindset.
I feel as though Emerson presented a convincing essay. Many of his appeals were used effectively, but I didn’t see much of an ethos appeal. I feel that he didn’t need one however. He first describes within length a problem and gives at least one solution for the reader to take. He then explains the effects of taking his given steps and how it will make things better for the reader. The diction used expressed his viewpoint in a precise way that could not be confused. His figurative language provided examples that would give better image to those who were not catching on to his words.