1. Yes, both are effectivly written, through strong diction and compelling language, arguements, topics, and support. Both throw in life experiences to add to the power of the writing. Both writers make the most of their talents, and their thesis are strong and supported thoroughly within the entire essay.
2. I think "Letters" is a more powerful essay, because it uses less flowery language and more loaded words to convey a strong, vivid image in the reader's mind. The giant run-on sentence on the first page also gives the impression that the list of injustices is never-ending. I would say it is more effective for me than the original audience, because they were living in the past, whereas I already have learned of what happened back then. This was a new idea to them, therefore foreign and looked down upon.
3. I believe that "Letters" is more focused, because King constantly drives his point home, hammering it into the minds of the readers. He states and restates the problem and solution, relentlessly pounding the reader's head with his strong diction and compelling writing style.
4. In my opinion, "Letters" is more effective, for the reasons I stated above, but "Civil Disobedience" is still very well written, but the flowery language made the overall aim of the piece hard to grasp and fully comprehend. King is more straightforward, Thoreau is more intellectual and avoids his point sometimes, therefore, "Letters" made more of an impression in my mind than "Civil Disobedience."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment