As I continued reading the essay I noticed that the tone was also different than the first essay. The first essay’s tone felt like there was compassion about the subject and it felt like the author was actually talking to me. The tone of this essay was more indifferent and emotionless. Maybe this was a result of the essay having more of a macro-level subject, or the simple fact that it talked about more historic events than historic figures. No matter what caused the indifferent tone, this made the essay less entertaining to read and I struggled to pay attention to what I was reading. This also hindered me from retaining much of the information because I was constantly bored as I read the essay.
This essay, as I have said before, is very …show more content…
Bowen wrote a book called “Spain During World War II”. The title states pretty clearly that he will be talking about Spain during the time of World War II. As I read this book I noticed Bowen talks about the Franco regime but does not take a firm standpoint, not one that I can see anyway. As far as I can tell, Wayne Bowen has a neutral standpoint on the Franco regime. This is conveyed by his criticism of Paul Preston, editor of “Spain and the Great Powers in the Twentieth Century”, who talked about the Franco Regime. On page three of his book he states “Preston is an excellent writer and exhaustive researcher, but he makes little effort to hide his revulsion of the Franco regime, a position that detracts from the objectivity of his many contributions to the field.” (Bowen 3). He also talks about the Franco regime how it remained intact until 1979 and the key years for the formation of the regime. This book, like Alan Brinkley’s essay, was very informational, but unlike his essay, this book talked about how the war affected another country instead of America. Even though it wasn’t exactly like Brinkley’s essay and was very informational, I still found this book rather boring to read as well.
In conclusion I believe the first essay “G.I. Joe: Fighting for Home” by John Morton Blum was more insightful on the subject. I believe this provides better insight because, unlike the second essay “American Liberals: Fighting for a Better World”
This essay, as I have said before, is very …show more content…
Bowen wrote a book called “Spain During World War II”. The title states pretty clearly that he will be talking about Spain during the time of World War II. As I read this book I noticed Bowen talks about the Franco regime but does not take a firm standpoint, not one that I can see anyway. As far as I can tell, Wayne Bowen has a neutral standpoint on the Franco regime. This is conveyed by his criticism of Paul Preston, editor of “Spain and the Great Powers in the Twentieth Century”, who talked about the Franco Regime. On page three of his book he states “Preston is an excellent writer and exhaustive researcher, but he makes little effort to hide his revulsion of the Franco regime, a position that detracts from the objectivity of his many contributions to the field.” (Bowen 3). He also talks about the Franco regime how it remained intact until 1979 and the key years for the formation of the regime. This book, like Alan Brinkley’s essay, was very informational, but unlike his essay, this book talked about how the war affected another country instead of America. Even though it wasn’t exactly like Brinkley’s essay and was very informational, I still found this book rather boring to read as well.
In conclusion I believe the first essay “G.I. Joe: Fighting for Home” by John Morton Blum was more insightful on the subject. I believe this provides better insight because, unlike the second essay “American Liberals: Fighting for a Better World”