The American society holds 9/11 to be the most devastating day in the history of the United States. An article which begins by “September 11” undoubtedly persuades a [an] audience to devote their efforts and become actively involved with the article’s endeavors. Quindlen follows this persuasive beginning by describing her son’s birthday. The audience is left feeling somewhat uncomfortable and unsure of the direction of the article’s intent—the audience is quickly placed in the reality of the devastating event of 9/11 then shifted to an unknown world of her son’s birthday—one who must share his day of celebration with the most destructive event in history.
Quindlen tackles one of the most complex issues in society, and yet evolves extremely compelling and simple questions throughout her text. Quindlen’s skillful elocutio is one in which she includes multiple layers of rhetoric. She presents many rhetorical questions throughout the article, “Who are we now?”— Which leaves the intended audience feeling guilty or even at fault for this terrible disaster. The country, she explains, is “now,split in two”. Her argument seems as though she considers our country as a binary society. Facing this tragic ordeal, we somehow manage to deal with the simplistic happenings of our everyday life- “life goes on.” Time was the healing remedy after 9/11, Americans examined ourselves and goals a bit more precisely, called family and friends more often but as Quindlen states, “The edges softened…Time passed.”
The article’s content, when examined within the context of Kinneavy’s article, is overtly complex and argues against the static categories presented by Kinneavy. With an immense array of evidence, Quindlen’s article complicates Kinneavy’s cut and dry explanation of the categories within the aims of discourse. She begins by presenting the article as an expressive move—including her child’s birthday, his personal experiences. The next paragraph shifts to the rhetorical questions-“Who are we now?” She then progresses towards a more political approach by stating, “We are people whose powers of imagination have been challenged by the revelations of the careful planning, the hidden leaders, the machinations from within a country of rubble and caves”
Although this article is less than two pages, it is full of discursive acts which could be unpacked into several pages of explanation. However, for this specific intent, I will argue that Quindlen’s aims of discourse complicate every aspect of Kinneavy’s diagram regarding the purposes of composition. The genre of this article involves multiple layers of discourse and is profoundly blurred between each category of discourse. I think her article reaches slightly/immensely in each one of the genres of discourse.
"One Day, Now Broken in Two" by Anna Quindlen, Newsweek.
Kyla,
ReplyDeleteI think this blog has some fabulous ideas. I actually did my writing on the same topic, and I also found that Quindlen's article proves that the categories on Kinneavy's chart are not static--many different genres and texts can fit into more than one of them.
I see that you say that her article can be placed in all four of his categories, I can definitely see where you are coming from, and I do agree with this statement. If you had to choose two of the four categories to place this article in (expressive, referential, literary, or persuasive), which would you pick?
~Lacey~
Kyla,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lacey. I did mine over the same article and came to the same conclusions. Quindlen doesn't use any kinds of persuasion in her article and it very much just about thoughts and emotions as opposed to having an actual point. Whereas, I would think all Americans feel the way she describes the article lacks a certain point. What exactly was she wanting us to get from the article? I understood how she wanted us to think about how the meaning of the date 9-11 has changed, but she gives no valid points. Because of her lack of persuasion I believed this to fall under the category of Referential and to fall more under the Diagnosis section. What do you think?
Kyla,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy your understanding of this text. I did my assingment over the same piece, but chose to use Ong instead. I did come to a different conclusion as to Quindlen's discursive aim, however. I felt that it was strongly epidiectic because of her shared views and experiences with her audience. I do agree that she uses hints of deliberative rhetoric to get her point across though. Your reading brought this issue up for me, and I find it interesting to think about how I may have broadend my views to gain a better understanding overall.