Doyle moves the reader’s attention away from the literal content of the essay by using repetition of two things: relating these animals to humans and also relating the chambers in the heart of a bunch of living animals. In the beginning of the story, Doyle compares the “hummingbird’s heart” to the “size of a pencil eraser,” and then he continues to compare the size of their heart to “the size of an infant’s fingernail” (273). These comparisons allow the reader to look at not just the facts of the matter, but also relate to what is being said. Doyle’s writing prepares us for these moments by using similar paragraphs starters. The paragraphs that pertain to the hummingbird or the whale begin with the introduction of a new body part or function.
…show more content…
Lastly, Doyle reveals the negatives to the body part or function while continuing to explain how the animal utilizes this feature. This structure hints that the piece is going to be about something more than hummingbirds because the example are fundamentally similar, but uniquely different, just like humans. Doyle is trying to set up our brains to think in a specific way about the existence of hearts in all living beings, so that he can broaden his spectrum and we can recognize on our own the striking similarities between what appears to be so different. For example, toward the end, Doyle begins listing how many “chambers” certain animals have in their heart and how “no living being is without interior liquid motion” (274) to prove that literally every animal has a heart. This paragraph sets up Doyle’s argument about how “we live alone in the house of the heart” (274) because everyone— animal or human— can relate. Doyle’s storytelling and subtle ability to make the reader relate to the content strengthens his ability to argue about how similar a heart makes living
Lastly, Doyle reveals the negatives to the body part or function while continuing to explain how the animal utilizes this feature. This structure hints that the piece is going to be about something more than hummingbirds because the example are fundamentally similar, but uniquely different, just like humans. Doyle is trying to set up our brains to think in a specific way about the existence of hearts in all living beings, so that he can broaden his spectrum and we can recognize on our own the striking similarities between what appears to be so different. For example, toward the end, Doyle begins listing how many “chambers” certain animals have in their heart and how “no living being is without interior liquid motion” (274) to prove that literally every animal has a heart. This paragraph sets up Doyle’s argument about how “we live alone in the house of the heart” (274) because everyone— animal or human— can relate. Doyle’s storytelling and subtle ability to make the reader relate to the content strengthens his ability to argue about how similar a heart makes living