“Every tear you drop squeezes a cup uh blood outa mah heart.” (Hurston 15)
Love is something that is not always or usually easy to attain. It is a special bond that develops between two beings, which is can never be truly broken or forgotten. In Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Janie is continually presented with love. The quote above illustrates the true meaning of love and how Janie has always had it throughout her life.
Even though it is not always simple to find love for another living being, it is still possible to attain. Once it is attained, the one who has fallen in love cannot help but to care more about that person than their own self. If that person was in dyer need of help, then the one in love would automatically drop what they are doing and advance with haste to their loved one’s rescue. They would always be there to aid their loved one in any way that they possibly can. Janie’s grandmother had developed a love this strong for Janie. She would do anything for Janie at any cost. When Janie was crying, it was if her grandmother’s heart was slowly breaking from within her. Her grandmother would feel her heart hurt so badly that it felt as if her heart had broken open, and every time Janie would cry, her heart would ache and pour out a cup’s worth of blood. This concept of love helps Hurston relay one of her many important messages to her readers.
One major message that is conveyed in this story is the theory of love. Janie lost her parents at a very young age. Her father had raped her mother and had run off. Her mother had begun to ruin her life after Janie was born. The only relative that she was left with was her grandmother. Meaning, her grandmother was the sole provider for this child and that her grandmother would have to be responsible for the upbringing of Janie. Even though her grandmother was not her true mother, Janie had viewed her of nothing less than that. With the years that they had come to bond together, they came to grow a deep and strong love for one another. Janie’s grandmother even claimed to care for Janie more than she did her own child. “Every tear you drop squeezes a cup uh blood outa mah heart.” (Hurston 15) This quote’s main purpose for being incorporated into the story was to show one of Hurston’s messages. It showed the message of love. Love is something that even still lives on until today.
Love is something that will never cease to exist between human beings. It is a strong craving that is internally buried into our souls. Every human being must feel loved and give love to another. There is no possible way to destroy this feeling from within us. Also, at times, this function of the heart cannot be controlled. If a person begins to continuously spend time with another person and has numerous times of enjoyment with them, then that person’s heart will begin to break off a piece of itself and give it to the person that it is in love with. Love is something that is sought out by a large number of people on a daily basis. When a person becomes lonely and has no one to spend their time with, then their internal self begins to seek out someone that they can give their heart out to. No matter what, the human being’s heart at all times requires that it is being loved and that it is offering its love off to another in need of it.
The quote illustrates the true meaning of love and how Janie has always had it throughout her life. Hurston makes it a point of placing the topic of love as one of her main and important messages because it is a subject that is undeniably always bound to continue living until the last day of the earth. It is a powerful subject that a reader can always enjoy, learn from, participate in, develop, and relate to. Love is truly a subject that never ceases to become old.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Persuasive Essay
Besides money appearing in many different forms, in many different countries, it is also viewed in many various ways by the wide variety of people on this earth. Lewis Lapham stated, "I think it fair to say that the current ardor of the American faith in money easily surpasses the degrees of intensity achieved by other societies in other times and places." (Lapham 1-2) To a certain extent, society does treat money as a precious item.
American society does have groups of people that do "worship" money. Money, in definition, is what Americans must use to get many things that they need and want. It is usually required that they must exchange a certain amount of money for the product, service, or thing that they want. The famous phrase "money does not grow on trees", which is from an unknown source, is a very true statement. Money is not always an easy item to attain. Many individuals are required to work strenuously and must be willing to give up their time to earn money. If an individual does not easily come upon money, then they may be likely to not want to give up their money as easily as well. They consider this item as a blessing because of the rarity that they come upon it and are able to use it. They may not know when they will be able to attain anymore money. Meaning, they would not be able to simply give up the remaining money that they do have.
American society also contains groups of people that are very fortunate and do the privilege of having money come easily to them and in large amounts. It is not easy to come upon opportunities such as this one. The individual may have a wealthy family, a great occupation, or may have even won the lottery. Since the person has the ability to be able to spend a large amount of money without any worries, they really would not tend to consider as such a blessing. They may instead overlook the value of their money because of the fact that it is a common thing for them to come upon. People with this view may also reason that, in all reality, the dollar itself is simply a piece of paper with ink on it. The real value behind it is the gold that backs up its value. When people look at money is this manner, they have a valid reason for not wishing to praise the dollar.
Lapham was partially correct about the American society having people worship money, but he did not do a very good job of granting himself credibility. In order to be able to believe in a Lapham's point, he must first show the reader that he has credibility. Lapham tried to give himself credibility by using examples of how other people would view the American society. "The ancient Greeks would have regarded it as a form of insanity." (Lapham 15) Lapham states that the ancient Greeks would have viewed how the American society worshiping of money is a form of insanity, but they do not specifically describe to the reader why ancient Greeks would have viewed Americans in that way. "An Englishman of modest means can remain more or less content with the distinction of an aristocratic name." (Lapham 17-18) Lapham chose to be very vague with this example; making his statement less concrete. Not everyone from a specific culture or area is exactly alike. So, the validity of his statement is weak because not every Englishman may have views similar to the ones Lapham pointed out.
To a certain extent, society does treat money as a precious item. How an American may view money all depends on what financial state the person may be in. If the person is filthy rich, then they may not find money as such an amazing thing. If the person is dirt poor, then they will find every single dollar they receive as a precious gift from God.
American society does have groups of people that do "worship" money. Money, in definition, is what Americans must use to get many things that they need and want. It is usually required that they must exchange a certain amount of money for the product, service, or thing that they want. The famous phrase "money does not grow on trees", which is from an unknown source, is a very true statement. Money is not always an easy item to attain. Many individuals are required to work strenuously and must be willing to give up their time to earn money. If an individual does not easily come upon money, then they may be likely to not want to give up their money as easily as well. They consider this item as a blessing because of the rarity that they come upon it and are able to use it. They may not know when they will be able to attain anymore money. Meaning, they would not be able to simply give up the remaining money that they do have.
American society also contains groups of people that are very fortunate and do the privilege of having money come easily to them and in large amounts. It is not easy to come upon opportunities such as this one. The individual may have a wealthy family, a great occupation, or may have even won the lottery. Since the person has the ability to be able to spend a large amount of money without any worries, they really would not tend to consider as such a blessing. They may instead overlook the value of their money because of the fact that it is a common thing for them to come upon. People with this view may also reason that, in all reality, the dollar itself is simply a piece of paper with ink on it. The real value behind it is the gold that backs up its value. When people look at money is this manner, they have a valid reason for not wishing to praise the dollar.
Lapham was partially correct about the American society having people worship money, but he did not do a very good job of granting himself credibility. In order to be able to believe in a Lapham's point, he must first show the reader that he has credibility. Lapham tried to give himself credibility by using examples of how other people would view the American society. "The ancient Greeks would have regarded it as a form of insanity." (Lapham 15) Lapham states that the ancient Greeks would have viewed how the American society worshiping of money is a form of insanity, but they do not specifically describe to the reader why ancient Greeks would have viewed Americans in that way. "An Englishman of modest means can remain more or less content with the distinction of an aristocratic name." (Lapham 17-18) Lapham chose to be very vague with this example; making his statement less concrete. Not everyone from a specific culture or area is exactly alike. So, the validity of his statement is weak because not every Englishman may have views similar to the ones Lapham pointed out.
To a certain extent, society does treat money as a precious item. How an American may view money all depends on what financial state the person may be in. If the person is filthy rich, then they may not find money as such an amazing thing. If the person is dirt poor, then they will find every single dollar they receive as a precious gift from God.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Persuasive Stuff
Meaning
1. " Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact." (Koch 320) Koch believed that the death penalty was the only way to strike fear in the murder's hearts. He thought that the murderer may not have committed the crime in fear of losing their own life in the end. With this fear intact, he also believed that one day the percentage of killers would decrease and would then diminish entirely. He asked that society please stop not taking responsibility for the murdering of lives. He believed that, without the death penalty, murderers would feel that they could kill without fear of a dyer consequence. He believed that people didn't want the death penalty because then they would partially be involved in the murdering of someone's life. He also stated that people were given the right to punish those that had murdered someone by god.
2. The argument dealing with the issue in the debate over capital punishment of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder is that the death penalty will scare murderers so bad that they won't murder. They would be risking the most valuable thing that they can murder. If they were to murder, then they could result in losing their own lives. This would then cause murders to rethink the situation before automatically killing a person. In this rethinking, they could possibly decide to not kill that person, thus, resulting in there not being a murder. The argument dealing with the issue in the debate over the death penalty being a form of justice for the murder done is that it provides somewhat of an even exchange. Since the person decided to take a life, then they should also be willing to lose theirs. It is a life for a life.
Purpose and Audience
1. This essay's purpose was not so Koch could gain votes. Throughout his essay he seems to be attacking all those that are against his arguments. He declares that people are too "weak", i suppose you can say, to gather up enough courage to deliver what he views as proper punishment to murders. He attacks people that don't support him by stating that people don't want to support the death penalty because they don't want to be a partial part of declaring someone to die. The whole point of trying to gain votes is to sweet talk its readers. Koch is in no manner trying to sugar coat his ideas to those who oppose it. Instead, he is strongly supporting and attacking their reasons for why they aren't supporting the death penalty. He personally names all their reasons and then makes counter points for them.
2. He believes that his audience doesn't agree with the death penalty at all. He shows this belief by directly addressing his audience, naming their reasons for not supporting the death penalty, and finally describing that his society members are too scared to declare the death penalty as constitutional. There wasn't a single part of his essay where he showed his belief of people who already supported his argument. His wrote a persuasive essay. This essay was created to try and persuade people that the death penalty was a necessity and correct form of justice. In order to try and persuade his readers of this, he placed emotional appeal in his essay. His examples of how murders were murdering people numerously were placed in the essay to try and show readers that the death penalty was good and right. They were supposed to make readers become angered at the murderers for killing.
3. He places the responsibilities of seeking justice for those murdered and wanting proper punishment for such harsh crimes. States laws are greatly supported by its people. Meaning that, the people have the ability to help create a safe community to live in. So, if a murder occurs, then society is partially to blame. Society continues to plead for a better life. Yet, they don't try to help towards the cause. If someone is murdered, then justice should be sought out. Such a high rated crime shouldn't be left unpunished.
Method and Structure
1. "I have listened to their ideas. I have weighted their objections carefully." (Koch 320) This ethical appeal is the most important type of appeal. It gives the reader assurance that they can trust in everything that you are telling them. "But to give up and do nothing would be far more barbaric and would certainly delay the discovery of an eventual cure." (Koch 321) Rational appeal is an alright appeal because it uses facts to try and get readers to agree with their argument. "Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand." (Koch 321) The emotional appeal is the least effective because a person's emotions aren't all the same, and it can be hard to try and make readers sympathize for certain people.
2. Willie and Shaw both had a revelation of how bad their murdering was. They then tried to have their executioners sympathize for them. They tried to make their executioners equal to them. For, the executioners were killing them for killing someone. Meaning, the murderers and executioners were one in alike. Koch declared this view as incorrect because they weren't one in the same. The people have no right to go and murder someone. The government has every right to punish a person with murdering them. The people are here to live. The government is here to govern.
3. Koch counters the argument that "the death penalty is 'barbaric" by stating facts. He says that the murdering rate is much higher within the U.S then in many other areas. He gives specific numbers and dates to provide as support for his statement. He also explains that the older methods of the death penalty are extinct and not used. He says the electric chair and other methods are out of date. Lethal injection is now mostly used. This form of execution is not supposed to hurt. It is said to be quick, painless, and easy.
4. Koch uses murderers and what they've done as examples. "Lemuel Smith... lured a woman corrections officer into the chaplain's office and strangled her. He then mutilated and dismembered her body." (Koch 322) Simply reading this statement appeals to the reader's emotions. The reader most likely would feel disgusted and upset with what the murderer has done. He did not only murder her, but he did so much more. He states that the government has a right to punish murders with murder because they have the right to govern their country to safety. He uses himself as an example to give himself credibility. His methods are persuasive because they contain emotional, ethical, and rational appeals.
Language
1. Koch is very angered and determined to persuade his readers. Koch is angered that society continues to fight the death penalty but also complains about the high death rate in the U.S. He wants to convince readers that the death penalty is the only right form of punishment at times. "Dozens of neighbors heard her cries for help but did nothing to assist her." (Koch 324) This example shows how he believed that people didn't want to help prevent murdering. The tone grabs the reader's attention if they are don't support the death penalty. This essay is written directly at these readers. So, the readers then feel compelled to listen to how their views may be wrong.
2. Koch seems to sound as if he believes that his opponents don't think logically. He sounds as if they are ridiculously wrong. He says that he has listened to his opponent's views but that they are wrong. By stating all his opponent's reasons for them not supporting the death penalty and countering them, he also seems to be declaring them as dumb. Since he is able to counter all of them, he insinuates that they have no logical reasoning for them not to support the death penalty. He also makes them out as cowards. He believes that they don't want murders to occur, but they won't try to get rid of murderers. Since they won't kill murderers, they don't want to help stop murdering.
Writing Topic
1. This is a plain and simple answer. Murdering is in no way right. It isn't right for people to do it or for the government to do it. God did say that "you shall not kill." The government is made up of people and Koch can even agree that people don't have the right to be able to easily kill anyone. The only being that has the right to take a life is God himself. God is the sole being that has the right to give and take lives. God is continuously watching over everything that society does. When a person does something wrong, God will always see it. He will then punish you as he sees fit. It may not occur immediately, but at the time when God decides if you go to heaven or hell. No person is God; meaning that no person has any rights to decide another 's death.
1. " Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact." (Koch 320) Koch believed that the death penalty was the only way to strike fear in the murder's hearts. He thought that the murderer may not have committed the crime in fear of losing their own life in the end. With this fear intact, he also believed that one day the percentage of killers would decrease and would then diminish entirely. He asked that society please stop not taking responsibility for the murdering of lives. He believed that, without the death penalty, murderers would feel that they could kill without fear of a dyer consequence. He believed that people didn't want the death penalty because then they would partially be involved in the murdering of someone's life. He also stated that people were given the right to punish those that had murdered someone by god.
2. The argument dealing with the issue in the debate over capital punishment of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder is that the death penalty will scare murderers so bad that they won't murder. They would be risking the most valuable thing that they can murder. If they were to murder, then they could result in losing their own lives. This would then cause murders to rethink the situation before automatically killing a person. In this rethinking, they could possibly decide to not kill that person, thus, resulting in there not being a murder. The argument dealing with the issue in the debate over the death penalty being a form of justice for the murder done is that it provides somewhat of an even exchange. Since the person decided to take a life, then they should also be willing to lose theirs. It is a life for a life.
Purpose and Audience
1. This essay's purpose was not so Koch could gain votes. Throughout his essay he seems to be attacking all those that are against his arguments. He declares that people are too "weak", i suppose you can say, to gather up enough courage to deliver what he views as proper punishment to murders. He attacks people that don't support him by stating that people don't want to support the death penalty because they don't want to be a partial part of declaring someone to die. The whole point of trying to gain votes is to sweet talk its readers. Koch is in no manner trying to sugar coat his ideas to those who oppose it. Instead, he is strongly supporting and attacking their reasons for why they aren't supporting the death penalty. He personally names all their reasons and then makes counter points for them.
2. He believes that his audience doesn't agree with the death penalty at all. He shows this belief by directly addressing his audience, naming their reasons for not supporting the death penalty, and finally describing that his society members are too scared to declare the death penalty as constitutional. There wasn't a single part of his essay where he showed his belief of people who already supported his argument. His wrote a persuasive essay. This essay was created to try and persuade people that the death penalty was a necessity and correct form of justice. In order to try and persuade his readers of this, he placed emotional appeal in his essay. His examples of how murders were murdering people numerously were placed in the essay to try and show readers that the death penalty was good and right. They were supposed to make readers become angered at the murderers for killing.
3. He places the responsibilities of seeking justice for those murdered and wanting proper punishment for such harsh crimes. States laws are greatly supported by its people. Meaning that, the people have the ability to help create a safe community to live in. So, if a murder occurs, then society is partially to blame. Society continues to plead for a better life. Yet, they don't try to help towards the cause. If someone is murdered, then justice should be sought out. Such a high rated crime shouldn't be left unpunished.
Method and Structure
1. "I have listened to their ideas. I have weighted their objections carefully." (Koch 320) This ethical appeal is the most important type of appeal. It gives the reader assurance that they can trust in everything that you are telling them. "But to give up and do nothing would be far more barbaric and would certainly delay the discovery of an eventual cure." (Koch 321) Rational appeal is an alright appeal because it uses facts to try and get readers to agree with their argument. "Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand." (Koch 321) The emotional appeal is the least effective because a person's emotions aren't all the same, and it can be hard to try and make readers sympathize for certain people.
2. Willie and Shaw both had a revelation of how bad their murdering was. They then tried to have their executioners sympathize for them. They tried to make their executioners equal to them. For, the executioners were killing them for killing someone. Meaning, the murderers and executioners were one in alike. Koch declared this view as incorrect because they weren't one in the same. The people have no right to go and murder someone. The government has every right to punish a person with murdering them. The people are here to live. The government is here to govern.
3. Koch counters the argument that "the death penalty is 'barbaric" by stating facts. He says that the murdering rate is much higher within the U.S then in many other areas. He gives specific numbers and dates to provide as support for his statement. He also explains that the older methods of the death penalty are extinct and not used. He says the electric chair and other methods are out of date. Lethal injection is now mostly used. This form of execution is not supposed to hurt. It is said to be quick, painless, and easy.
4. Koch uses murderers and what they've done as examples. "Lemuel Smith... lured a woman corrections officer into the chaplain's office and strangled her. He then mutilated and dismembered her body." (Koch 322) Simply reading this statement appeals to the reader's emotions. The reader most likely would feel disgusted and upset with what the murderer has done. He did not only murder her, but he did so much more. He states that the government has a right to punish murders with murder because they have the right to govern their country to safety. He uses himself as an example to give himself credibility. His methods are persuasive because they contain emotional, ethical, and rational appeals.
Language
1. Koch is very angered and determined to persuade his readers. Koch is angered that society continues to fight the death penalty but also complains about the high death rate in the U.S. He wants to convince readers that the death penalty is the only right form of punishment at times. "Dozens of neighbors heard her cries for help but did nothing to assist her." (Koch 324) This example shows how he believed that people didn't want to help prevent murdering. The tone grabs the reader's attention if they are don't support the death penalty. This essay is written directly at these readers. So, the readers then feel compelled to listen to how their views may be wrong.
2. Koch seems to sound as if he believes that his opponents don't think logically. He sounds as if they are ridiculously wrong. He says that he has listened to his opponent's views but that they are wrong. By stating all his opponent's reasons for them not supporting the death penalty and countering them, he also seems to be declaring them as dumb. Since he is able to counter all of them, he insinuates that they have no logical reasoning for them not to support the death penalty. He also makes them out as cowards. He believes that they don't want murders to occur, but they won't try to get rid of murderers. Since they won't kill murderers, they don't want to help stop murdering.
Writing Topic
1. This is a plain and simple answer. Murdering is in no way right. It isn't right for people to do it or for the government to do it. God did say that "you shall not kill." The government is made up of people and Koch can even agree that people don't have the right to be able to easily kill anyone. The only being that has the right to take a life is God himself. God is the sole being that has the right to give and take lives. God is continuously watching over everything that society does. When a person does something wrong, God will always see it. He will then punish you as he sees fit. It may not occur immediately, but at the time when God decides if you go to heaven or hell. No person is God; meaning that no person has any rights to decide another 's death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)