Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Collaborative Essay(An Ocurrence at Owl Creek Bridge 3rd question)
Bierce switches from distant third-person to an omniscient point of view to show important his wife and children are to him. " With a noose around his neck he closed his eyes in order to fix in his last thoughts upon his wife and children"(Bierce 32). Bierce wants his audience to know what was going on throught Peytons mind at that moment. Peytons last thoughts were about how important family and nature were to him. This proves how Peyton was not a bad person as he was portrayed to be but also had a caring side to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you presented your own interpritation of what you beleive the author is trying to tell his audience. However, I dont agree that it proves that he's a good person exactly. I just think in a person's last moment they show what they truely care about and who they really are or want to be. In this man's case, I think it shows what he truely cares about. Realizing it doesnt neccissarly make you a good person if you dont show it with your actions. His previous actions show he isn't a good guy and in the end we are shown what I beleive he would have done, but was never given the chance to implicate it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for posting your work here. I am glad your team was able to assemble the TEA paragraph given the limited time we have in the classroom. Your claim uses an active verb (to show) and your evidence provides effective support for your claim. Your team also provides the required analysis which directly links to both your evidence and your topic. You also provide the reader with a correctly punctuated MLA citation. Well done! Since this is a draft, there is always room for improvement, but you have a great base to work from. Can you catch the two apostrophe errors? Also, read the last sentence out loud and see if you can catch the structural error. I also appreciate Daniel's comment on this post because this type of critical thinking is exactly what I am encouraging here. When you experience another opinion on a topic that is different than your own, there is a great opportunity for reflection and learning. If this was an argument, I think Daniel makes a great point. Peyton is a secessionist, after all, and he did try to blow up the federally controlled bridge. Since you start your paragraph with Bierce, your team is actually reflecting on how the author chose to portray this character and I think your analysis is correct in reflecting on why the author chooses to give us insights into his mind. However, your last sentence claims that Peyton "was not a bad person" and I think you can make a stronger statement about why Bierce would choose to highlight the human side of Peyton at the end. Perhaps Bierce is more interested in examining the larger context of war, rather than trying to prove whether or not Peyton is a "good" or "bad" person...? Interesting commentary here. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteI’m pleased how you put all the pieces together and fight to convince your colleagues to flow with your believe. There is a good side to humanity; even cruel people had opened their hearts to some situations. Haven’t you ever seen people perceived by others as dangerous and killers… turned out to do something worth of praise?
ReplyDeleteI love to quote a verse from the Holy Bible. In the book of Daniel, we can find a story of a king who was compassionate towards a few youth. In history, Persians were known for their cruel execution styles. I am not sure whether you heard of such a story. They used to laugh and chant seeing people die in agony being tied by rope and pulled apart by opposite flying chariots. This can tell you how brutality they exercised. However, the king was unimaginably kind to Daniel and his friends. “Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published… he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying… When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him. Then the men went as a group to the king and said to him, "Remember, O king, that according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed." However, the cruel King of Persia didn’t get any way to save Daniel and his fate was throw in to the Lion’s den. No one expected Daniel to survive that horrifying night, but he did. What I want emphasis is the King’s reaction to this particular morning. “At the first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions' den. When he came near the den, he called to Daniel in an anguished voice, "Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?" Daniel answered, "O king, live forever! My God sent his angel and he shut the mouths of the lions.” That is why I have come to believe wicked can be kind and willing to save people like this king has done to Daniel.
thanks Tsegaye,but can you explain to me what that quote means because it left me a bit confused?
Delete