"In writing Into The Wild, Jon Krakauer has obvious opinions about the subject and employs rhetoric to show this. If you were writing the story of Christopher McCandless, how would your rhetoric differ from that of Krakauer? Would it? What types of rhetoric would you use, and why? What might this story be called?"
My rhetoric wouldn't differ very much from Krakauer. What I would do differently though is be more biased, because thats just who I am. I have trouble just telling a story, he doesn't. He uses a great way of siding people to his opinions by showing Chris's bravery, and his courage. He doesn't ever at any point make him look bad or selfious for abandoning his parents. To Krakauer, it's just something Chris had to do.
I would definitely be far more biased and use more narrative instead of telling a story. For instance, I wouldn't describe the events, instead I would just say, he showed courage by taking that boat so far! No one else could do what he did. My story would be called, Survival, or A Courageous Journey, or something corny like that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand what you mean. It can be really hard to not show that you are completely bias towards one subject. I couldnt help but show how bias i was in our first essay of the class. But at least we both see that Krakauer may have employed his rhetoric the best way possible for this book.
ReplyDelete