The struggles and challenges people with Multiple Sclerosis face are difficult and sometimes completely life-changing. In “Living Under Circe’s Spell” and “On Being a Cripple” the main authors are diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis but both authors decide to take different paths and methods to deal with it and live with it. The difference between them is the way they deal with the situation and definitely their persona. In my opinion “Living Under Circe’s Spell” by Matthew Soyster does a better job effectively engaging the reader or audience in an emotional way. The use of pathos and imagery are definitely the strongest forms of figurative language that both Matthew Soyster and Mairs use to get their argument across. They use imagery to express
…show more content…
Soyster lives in his past and remembers how when before he learned he had multiple sclerosis he “was a marathon runner and whitewater-rafting guide, cyclist and skier” but which all eventually was gone (Soyster 1). His form of pathos is stronger and more effectively used than Mair’s, “On Being a Cripple” as he evokes the audience’s pity and sadness. He uses it to make the audience realize how much such a disease can take away from a human being, someone so successful and healthy can be completely useless and unpowered by a wheelchair. On the other hand, Mair’s form of pathos isn’t as effective. She doesn’t think she’s any different to those whose legs and life still respond to them as supposed to, she has “long since grown accustomed to” the comments, and looks of sympathy (Mairs 1). She uses pathos to try making the readers feel bad for her circumstance but then contradicts herself as she argues she’s still the same and nothing has changed, she can still be happy and be herself. She evokes pity and sadness as it is the definition of pathos by talking at a point about how she is constantly treated and labeled as a disabled or handicapped but doesn’t think it correct too because she believes she isn’t any of that, she’s used to the comments and lifestyle because she also believes it hasn’t changed anything and doesn’t make her any different to those who can walk. Soysters form of pathos is way stronger and effective than
Soyster lives in his past and remembers how when before he learned he had multiple sclerosis he “was a marathon runner and whitewater-rafting guide, cyclist and skier” but which all eventually was gone (Soyster 1). His form of pathos is stronger and more effectively used than Mair’s, “On Being a Cripple” as he evokes the audience’s pity and sadness. He uses it to make the audience realize how much such a disease can take away from a human being, someone so successful and healthy can be completely useless and unpowered by a wheelchair. On the other hand, Mair’s form of pathos isn’t as effective. She doesn’t think she’s any different to those whose legs and life still respond to them as supposed to, she has “long since grown accustomed to” the comments, and looks of sympathy (Mairs 1). She uses pathos to try making the readers feel bad for her circumstance but then contradicts herself as she argues she’s still the same and nothing has changed, she can still be happy and be herself. She evokes pity and sadness as it is the definition of pathos by talking at a point about how she is constantly treated and labeled as a disabled or handicapped but doesn’t think it correct too because she believes she isn’t any of that, she’s used to the comments and lifestyle because she also believes it hasn’t changed anything and doesn’t make her any different to those who can walk. Soysters form of pathos is way stronger and effective than