After analyzing the arguments and rhetoric of both Thoreau and King, compare the pieces of writings. Address paradoxes, attitude, tone, and type of appeal (logos/logical, pathos/emotional, ethos/ ethical). Be sure to discuss specific rhetorical strategies. Also consider the following questions:
- Are both essays effectively written? Is neither? Why or why not?
- Is one essay more effective than the other? For you or for the original audience? Why?
- Is one essay more focused than the other? For what reasons? Are these essays equally effective but in different ways?
Write a thoughtful, cohesive response. Feel free to address one another.
10 comments:
Although from different time periods, Thoreau and King’s articles address similar problems. Both men suggest you should speak out against laws you feel are unjust. They also both appealed to people’s common sense and the morality of Americans. However, King’s article more greatly appealed to the emotional side of people. This is especially shown in paragraph two when King lists hardships that African American’s are put through. In contrast , Thoreau uses a bossy tone and is more demanding of his audience. King’s essay is more focused than Thoreau’s because he focused mainly on one general idea—just and unjust laws. Thoreau jumped around to many ideas and it was not cohesive (like our answer :-)).
-Roxanne, Lauren, Colleen, Alex Huang, Alex Jin
In our opinion, we feel that King shows logos, pathos, and ethos. He shares how strongly he feels about changing the laws, and gives an optimistic view on how to peacefully resist and change to unjust laws. He clearly explains the difference between the just and unjust laws, which help the reader to understand his purpose. He also shares specific events on how the laws were changed for the better, such as the schools becoming unsegregated. He stays on topic, and shows the point he wants to get across. Thoreau, on the other hand, doesnt support his reason for resisting the laws with strong examples. He doesnt give an optimistic feel, making the person feel like they will be alone when resisting the law. Because of no strong examples, he lacks ethos in his essay. He lets his emotion get in the way of his writting, so he strays off topic, confusing the readrer. He also changes his purpose throughout the essay, so it is hard to understand his main purpose, also confusin the reader. All in all, they both agree that there are differences between just and unjust laws, and the unjust laws need to be changed by resisting the government, even if they are going against the majority of the people.
I felt that King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" was much more effective than Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." With a combination of tone and arguement these two essays that are basically arguing for the same justiceclaw come off completely different. Thoreau had a tone of vain anger that turns off the reader. I felt while I was reading that he was just ranting on about his objections he had about the governent and putting all him blame on the situation on it. He gave no legitimate support to what he was arguing and twisted his words so that it was difficult to understand.
Robert Kramer, Justin Park
The essays are very different based on several key differences in the message and the style of writing. King’s essay is directed at gaining equality for one minority group, whereas Thoreau is trying to liberate practically all of mankind from his governments and outside influences on his conscience. Another big difference is the attitude that the characters have about bringing about change. Thoreau admits that there is often little to be done about big problems and that it is enough just to not support the immoral government. King disagrees, and says it is necessary to take a more active, but not a violent, stand against unfair laws. While Thoreau seems to take a less personal approach to his situation, King attempts to represent a feeling of necessary uprising and quick change. He also gives us an emotional and ethical focus to the subject, while Thoreau approaches using more logic.
We thought that overall, MLK gave us a more effective approach to the arguement, and was overall more consistent. Thoreau went to the point of changing is viewpoint towards the end, and leaving us in an argumentative and confused state. In regrads to focus, MLK really zoomed in on the subject and even convinced us to support his argument.
"Letter from Birmingham Jail" was better-written than "Civil DIsobedience" was in that it related to the readers better, or me to be specific. King used a more appealing method of reaching out to the reader and he got the sympathy of the audience. Also, Thoreau didn't use any examples that the reader could understnad. If he was to convince the eneral public, they wouldn't be able to understand what he was trying to say, whereas the audience would be able to sympathize and share what King was thinking. For me, personally, I wasn't able to focus on the "Civil Disobedience" essay as much as I did on the "Birmingham" essay. It took THoreau a really long time to elaborate on what his point was. The first line of the excerpt of "Civil DIsobedience" was his thesis, but it takes pages and pages for him to be satisfied with his support, yet he changed his mind at the end. I was so confused after reading it because I didn't know if he wanted a government or not. Inside, I was screaming, "MAKE UP YOUR MIND!" Thoreau also used words that I had to look up in the dictionary, and I lost patience after a while. King, on the other hand, stuck with one point throughout his essay; he din't switch his mind. King had a goal and he reached it by explaining in a concise manner. However, i believe that both essays could be effective, just each for a different audience. "Civil Disobedience" would probably appeal more to the highly educated, such as professors and philospophers because of the sophisticated explaniations and analogies. "Legtter from Birmingham Jail" would appeal and relate better to a general audience because of the informality and the relativity to its audience's experiences.
Although Thoreau suggested a good point in his essay, King more effectively wrote his essay due to the fact he continuously focused on arguing his purpose. Throughout Thoreau's essay, Thoreau goes off on capricious rants, often digressing from his purpose, which is also unclear. This is also supported by the fact that Thoreau had three different tones whereas King used one. in another way, King's essay is more effective since King uses firsthand accounts to support his argument. However, Thoreau is less credible because he uses ideology and theory to support his unclear purpose. More importantly, what makes Thoreau's essay less credible and unclear is the fact that Throureau changes his opinion within the essay. At the start of the essay, Thoreau claims hat no government is the best government. Hoever, later in the essay, Thoreau mentions that he's willing to obey any government that is better than himself, which is contrary to hat he had argued. On the other hand, King is able to stay f.....
I think that King's essay' "Letter Form a Birmingham Jail", was more effective because he appealed emotionally to the audience through examples. King gives examples of how unfair blacks are being treated unfairly and white people, even policemen, are discriminating against blacks. He provides examples including women and children to appeal to the reader who have family members. I also think King's essay was more focused than Thoreau's. King whole paper revolved around one purpose and his view on his purpose, while as Thoreau's changes opinion throughout his essay. King gave clear support for his opinion, where as Thoreau stated his opinions, but did effectively tell us why they were the best.
I made mine as a post not a comment but i totally agree with all of them expecialy Gina. It was really annoying reading Thoreau's speech... i finally understood why people of that time would not listen to him...
me and michele lawler worked on our comment together... i forgot to put her name in, sorry!
This is extremely difficult. Although Civil Disobedience required more time to analyze and comprehend, I guess that I believe that it was effective in some aspects. It seemed like there were many sections where Thoreau attempted to make the reader think for oneself, yet often turned into him explicitly expressing his own opinions and sort of throwing them at the reader. I also feel like he contridicted himself and went back and forth on views of topics. His point of the importance of individual reform against unjust laws as well as the government was strongly stated throughout this piece which causes me to believe that his message was infact stated to the audiance although not as effective as king's letter.
Letters I felt was a more personal piece and possibly written more effectively than Thoreau's piece.
Although Thoreau may explain just and unjust laws more elaborately, i believe that King does it more effectively due to his personal attachment and passion for the topic. I felt as though King took on the issue from an assertive yet humble approach through his wording and overall organization of this letter.
Considering that these articles contain some of the same views and interpretations one would think that the same feeling would come from reading them yet King's left the reader feeling inspired while Thoreau leaves one empty.
Post a Comment