Anna Quindlen is a mother, a United States citizen and author of the Newsweek article, “One Day, Now Broken in Two”. In this piece she analyzes the effects of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the minds, hearts and attitudes of the American people. She uses strong appeals to pathos, rhetorically wrenching the readers towards an ultimate sadness upon completion. While she suggests that many Americans have used “simple” and “mundane” activities to mask the “terror of the new reality” she offers no solution to this “happy trance”.
At both the beginning, and the end of the article Quindlen strongly appeals to the readers emotions. She shares the unfortunate fact that her son was born on September 11 as the opening sentence. The sentence is short and concise, and fails to mention the year of her son’s birth and the presence of a father. Her choice to leave out these details causes the reader to sympathetically envision a single mother, giving birth on the day of the terrorist attacks, even though it becomes obvious later in the paper her son was a teenagers during the attacks. In the second to last paragraph she describes the horrible events that her family was forced to endure on the day prior to 9-11. That evening while putting her daughter to bed she promises her, “Don’t worry, honey. We’ll never again have a day as bad as this one.” The story encourages a strong emotional response from the reader, and ultimately ends the article with a sad tone.
Quindlen asks and answers a series of questions, all uniformly placed at the beginning of several paragraphs, that implore readers to look closely at Americans as a whole. She asks three times throughout the article, “Who are we now?” She offers two responses, “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 and desperate want, the willingness to slam headlong into one great technological achievement while piloting another as a way of despising modernity.” This statement, as well as the following answer, implies that we as a nation are eternally suffering victims. “We are people of two minds now, the one that looks forward and the one that unwillingly and unexpectedly flashes back.”
While this article invokes strong emotions, and serves as an excellent reminder to the pain inside every American as a result of 9-11, it offers no solution towards mending those wounds. Quindlen’s rhetoric is upsetting and casts a shadow over the hearts of many optimistic Americans who have dealt with the pain and now hold on respectable and honorary memories of that fateful day. The general message she conveys about an underlying sadness in Americans soul may be observed as true, but the fact is merely depressing when no solution is offered along with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This article being written only a year after the attacks is not going to be able to offer many solutions to such a recent event. All of our lives were impacted somehow and I think the writer was trying to have people remember that this world is a different one. Her question's of "who are we now" was and still is being figured out. And her answer "We are people of two minds now, the one that looks forward and the one that unwillingly and unexpectedly flashes back." was very descriptive of the way many americans felt. This was a new experience for all of us. With news of foiled attacks and not knowing what would come next. Any talk of terrorism would ultimately bring up reminders of that day.
I agree with what Nate has posted. Although she does not give a solution to the problem, the United States is still in a mourning period. If this were written today, her solutions may have been clearer because she would have had more time to look back on the experience and also think about the steps that she took to overcome the nation's tragedy.
I agree with everything that nate and tiffany are saying also. at that time i believe that people were still a little in shock with what had happened, almost like it was unreal. now that we have had time to think about what had happened and reflect on it, i think people can go on with there lives.
I think that even though Sept. 11 was so recent at this time, that was what made it so important. The author saw the people of this country getting back to their lives and moving on and although that was what needed to happen, she wanted people to remember that it will never be normal again. She wanted us to always be thinking and always be aware that things are different and by doing that we would be able to grow and heal
I think the response to this article is appropriate. I understand that the article was written only a year later, but it does not shed any light on an already depressing subject. I like that the response took time to point out the rhetorical device of repeating questions throughout the text. This really stuck out to me while reading the article so I am glad someone else pointed that out. Lastly, I think the subject of Sept. 11 is almost impossible to write about because it means something different to so many people; every piece is bound to offend some people and comfort others and that is a risk on the author's part.
I find it interesting that you chose to conceive this article as a negative approach of using pathos, because that is the way in which i interpreted it as well. I believe that she is trying to make Americans feel guilty for both moving past the events of 9-11 and for not remembering them everyday and trying to appreciate life more. She sends mixed solutions that I find myself wondering, what does she want us to do? Her way of leaving things out and not offering a logical solution more than ignorance and trying to feel good afterwards is not comforting to me. I feel she really could have furthered this text by trying to incorporate all three: ethos, pathos, and logos into her article, and not simply relying on emotions alone to give it strength.
Post a Comment