|
Stress is often an inevitable outcome of life's activities, whether it is related to a situation, a person, or an event. Ariel Levy wrote her memoir, The Lesbian Bride’s Handbook, to a
universal audience since everyone can relate to feeling stressed. Levy
recollected on the pressure of recently planning her wedding; she was constantly
worrying about what friends, family and society would think of, what she
called, her “party about love.” Levy used this title as a denotation of wedding
and a general term of endearment, but also as a way to avoid the perception
that she and fiancé, Amy, were posing as a normal couple with a normal wedding.
This problem was one of the multiple complications Levy perceived, but the one
she focused on was the importance of her wedding dress. Levy introduced this
importance with descriptive imagery and creative metaphors to describe the different
dress choices and their faults. She concentrated on the dress because she again
wanted to avoid the perception of a normal wedding, but she also wanted the
dress to stun Amy’s mother and the rest of the guests. Levy then wrote the
story in hindsight after the wedding occurred. She explains that it went
splendidly: the band, the flowers and the dress were all beautiful, and Amy’s
mother was in awe. At the end of it all, Levy perfectly summed up the theme of
the story with a rhetorical question: “who could feel okay about keeping
something so expensive hanging in a garment bag? Amy I’m keeping” (140). The
object that created the most stress for Levy turned out to be so unimportant
that she would eventually sell it. After having a sort of epiphany, Levy
realizes what she should have focused on: the person that matters the most,
Amy. The Lesbian Bride’s Handbook impeccably
enlightens the reader to focus his or her time and efforts on what is truly
important rather than material ideas. And in that way, the stress will be
worthwhile.
 |
| Levy's Blue Wedding Dress |
Sunday, August 11, 2013
The Lesbian Bride's Handbook
Thursday, August 8, 2013
The Renegade
Nature versus nurture is always a
controversial topic. In his personal essay The
Renegade, Charles Simic focuses on how his upbringing impacted the person
he became. The environment he grew up in, such as family, time period, and
current events, ultimately shaped his beliefs and his life. Simic used many
anecdotes from his past experiences to bring his story together. For example he
included a story of his grandmother and what she taught him. As Simic grew up
in Serbia, Hitler and his Nazis began to seize power throughout Europe and occupy
Serbia. Simic was then subjected to a variety of opinions, including his grandmother’s,
which foreshadowed the terror Hitler’s reign would bring. She warned her
grandson to “beware of the so-called great leaders and the collective euphorias
they excite” (228). The beliefs of Simic’s grandmother’s became his own and
therefore made him hesitant to accept new leadership or authority. When
Slobodan Milosevic became the Serbian president in 1989 Serbians loved him,
except for Simic. Despite living in the United States at the time, Simic was
worried by the new leader and thus became more involved in Serbian politics.
Simic openly stated his distaste for Milosevic in an interview causing Simic’s
friends and family to question his commitment as a Serb. This new identity as a
renegade, or traitor, as some believed, resulted in Simic’s being more vocal and writing this essay. At first Simic’s writing
style made it hard to predict where the plot and general story were going,
however looking back his purpose is easily identifiable . Simic wrote The Renegade to inform the reader, or anyone with a basic knowledge of Hitler, Milosevic, and conflict in Serbia, that one should not be just a blind
follower. Simic wished to stress the importance of expressing personal opinion rather than simply agreeing with the majority.
 |
| Leaving like a renegade http://blogs.yis.ac.jp/15bryana/2010/12/06/to-a-daughter-leaving-home-by-linda-pastan/ |
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Becoming Adolf
Some say the mustache makes the
man. For a time, that was the theory of the Jewish, New York Times bestselling
author, Rich Cohen. He wrote to enlighten the reader, anyone familiar with
Hitler and his legacy, with the knowledge that some symbols are too notorious
to be forgotten. Cohen was prompted to conduct an experiment when author
Richard Dawkins used an analogy that questioned whether the evil of Hitler and
Stalin was caused by their mustaches. Cohen conducted his own experiment by
growing a toothbrush mustache in an attempt to defuse the mustache’s connection
with Adolf Hitler. Cohen delves into the history of various facial hairstyles and
the political figures with which those styles are associated. The variety of facts and historical
information appealed to Aristotle’s Triangle of Rhetoric, specifically to the
aspect of logos or logic. Cohen continued this appeal to logic by citing
credible and informative sources such as Alexander Moritz Frey, The New York Times, and The Secret Parts of Fortune. Cohen
acknowledged the pathos corner of the triangle through pop culture references,
such as the use of pop culture references like an analogy using Michael Jordan
(16), and through well-known connotations, such as “Hitler being Hitler” (17).
The logos and pathos elements of rhetoric helped Cohen guide the reader to find
the essay’s purpose. The beginning and middle of the essay gave background
information to the audience that did not make a significant impact on realizing
the purpose. Cohen eventually revealed the purpose when he described the
results of his own experiment toward the end of his piece. People, even close
friends, could not look at him without referencing Hitler in some way, whether
it was through dirty looks or actual comments. Cohen concluded that he could
not cleanse the mustache’s reputation. So it is not the mustache that makes the
man, it is the man that makes the mustache.
 |
Cohen and his Hitler mustache
Photograph by Gasper Tringale.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)