1.What does the title of this essay imply about the topic of the essay?
As the essay centers around loss and how the author Daphne Merkin seems to hold onto and remember all of her lost items, the title of the essay motions toward that core theme. If one were to take the title in a literal sense it could be interpreted as a way of reflecting on and examining all of that which has been lost, and this parallels the action of the author in the essay.
2. Identify the organizational pattern(s) used in this essay. How are they used effectively?
The organizational pattern of this essay is that of cause and effect and works to clearly demonstrate the thoughts of the author. For example, in the last paragraph of the essay the author, brings up …show more content…
Moreover, if I were to back this claim up I would point to the starting sentence and ending sentences of this essay, where Merkin points out that she risks life and limb to retrieve a single scarf, and that there is no point fixating on the red glove she lost in Central Park, but she will anyway.
4. On pages 41-42, Merkin asks a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of this question at this point in the essay?
For context, the rhetorical question posed by Merkin centers around how she likes to associate herself with people who fight painstakinly against their losses, and how this ties in with the idea that the greatest loss is death. She poses the question that boils down to the idea that if the greatest loss is death and that is a common obsession of human beings doesn’t it make sense to then take the resistance we would have for the loss of life and apply it to the loss of all things. The purpose of this statement is to both justify her emotional reactions and move the trajectory of the essay into a more philosophical territory. The next paragraph has no mention of the scarf, but starts to mention the human condition, and strays away from the narrative format, not using one the first …show more content…
What are some of the reasons that Merkin gives for “chasing” objects? Do you find her arguments appealing? Which rhetorical device does she use to assist with her argument?
Merkin gives at least three main reasons for “chasing” objects. The first is that these objects have a physical value, the second is that these objects represent all the objects already lost, and the third is that these objects represent the final loss that of life. I find the first argument reasonable, the second shaky, and the third to be unfounded. The first is quite logical, it starts with her saying that she’s always wanted a scarf, and found one that she likes, but after losing the scarf replacement is a far cry. There is plenty of Logos in this argument and I find myself appealing with Merkin easily. The second is more introspective but, is not found in logic. It is summed up in the quote “to grieve over one loss… is to grieve overall losses.” It is founded in pathos, but I don’t think it is wonderfully persuasive as it centers primarily on the emotions of the author than that of the reader. The third argument is only briefly touched upon and never sufficiently explored. The best quote from the essay on the topic was “every loss is tinged with mortality”. The argument is brief and doesn’t have a substantial effect in the realms of either ethos, logos or
As the essay centers around loss and how the author Daphne Merkin seems to hold onto and remember all of her lost items, the title of the essay motions toward that core theme. If one were to take the title in a literal sense it could be interpreted as a way of reflecting on and examining all of that which has been lost, and this parallels the action of the author in the essay.
2. Identify the organizational pattern(s) used in this essay. How are they used effectively?
The organizational pattern of this essay is that of cause and effect and works to clearly demonstrate the thoughts of the author. For example, in the last paragraph of the essay the author, brings up …show more content…
Moreover, if I were to back this claim up I would point to the starting sentence and ending sentences of this essay, where Merkin points out that she risks life and limb to retrieve a single scarf, and that there is no point fixating on the red glove she lost in Central Park, but she will anyway.
4. On pages 41-42, Merkin asks a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of this question at this point in the essay?
For context, the rhetorical question posed by Merkin centers around how she likes to associate herself with people who fight painstakinly against their losses, and how this ties in with the idea that the greatest loss is death. She poses the question that boils down to the idea that if the greatest loss is death and that is a common obsession of human beings doesn’t it make sense to then take the resistance we would have for the loss of life and apply it to the loss of all things. The purpose of this statement is to both justify her emotional reactions and move the trajectory of the essay into a more philosophical territory. The next paragraph has no mention of the scarf, but starts to mention the human condition, and strays away from the narrative format, not using one the first …show more content…
What are some of the reasons that Merkin gives for “chasing” objects? Do you find her arguments appealing? Which rhetorical device does she use to assist with her argument?
Merkin gives at least three main reasons for “chasing” objects. The first is that these objects have a physical value, the second is that these objects represent all the objects already lost, and the third is that these objects represent the final loss that of life. I find the first argument reasonable, the second shaky, and the third to be unfounded. The first is quite logical, it starts with her saying that she’s always wanted a scarf, and found one that she likes, but after losing the scarf replacement is a far cry. There is plenty of Logos in this argument and I find myself appealing with Merkin easily. The second is more introspective but, is not found in logic. It is summed up in the quote “to grieve over one loss… is to grieve overall losses.” It is founded in pathos, but I don’t think it is wonderfully persuasive as it centers primarily on the emotions of the author than that of the reader. The third argument is only briefly touched upon and never sufficiently explored. The best quote from the essay on the topic was “every loss is tinged with mortality”. The argument is brief and doesn’t have a substantial effect in the realms of either ethos, logos or