In reading Terry Tempest Williams' "The Clan of One-Breasted Women," I was strongly reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. Like Ehrenreich, Williams seems to be a fan of employing pathos (the appeal to an audience's emotions):
"I watched the women in my family die common, heroic deaths. We sat in waiting rooms hoping for good news, always receiving the bad. I cared for them, bathed their scarred bodies....I held their foreheads as they vomited green-black bile and I shot them with morphine when the pain became inhuman. In the end, I witnessed their last, peaceful breaths, becoming midwife to the rebirth of their souls" (94).
The language in this passage is very powerful and the imagery is extremely vivid, procuring from the reader a sense of empathy and disgust at the possible effects of nuclear testing. While I am fairly certain this is what Williams wished to accomplish with her article, does she push the limit? Is this yet another example of abusing the rhetorical device of pathos, or does the subject matter require such a strong use of it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I do think that Williams's topic required such an emotional way of putting things because of how these families were effected. I dont think there is any way to approach the issue without including an extremem amount of pathos to make a point to people who did not go throug it themselves.
In this way, I feel that Obama accomplised the same thing in "A More Perfect Union" because of how he appealed to the emotions of the different groups of people all effected by racism. In order to make his speech all inclusive he acknowledged how each group would feel like they have been mistreated and that these feelings are not completely misguided.
I believe that this is a bonafide example of the forever evolving issue of social justice. It cannot be defined in one way and to all people will mean something different. I respected how Obama acknowledged, "what would be needed were Americans in successive who were willing to do their part --through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk --to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time." And although he is referring to issues that happened many years ago, they are still prevalent today, and people still have the right to demand justice for issues that divide this country and what they believe in. For our President to acknowledge that point is very important to me.
I do think that Williams's topic required such an emotional way of putting things because of how these families were effected. I dont think there is any way to approach the issue without including an extremem amount of pathos to make a point to people who did not go throug it themselves.
In this way, I feel that Obama accomplised the same thing in "A More Perfect Union" because of how he appealed to the emotions of the different groups of people all effected by racism. In order to make his speech all inclusive he acknowledged how each group would feel like they have been mistreated and that these feelings are not completely misguided.
I believe that this is a bonafide example of the forever evolving issue of social justice. It cannot be defined in one way and to all people will mean something different. I respected how Obama acknowledged, "what would be needed were Americans in successive who were willing to do their part --through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk --to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time." And although he is referring to issues that happened many years ago, they are still prevalent today, and people still have the right to demand justice for issues that divide this country and what they believe in. For our President to acknowledge that point is very important to me.
Post a Comment