Without actually living in another person’s life, someone cannot really tell what the other person is going through or how they are feeling, and this can occur when it comes to disabled people. In “On Being a Cripple” by Nancy Mairs and “Living Under Circe’s Spell” by Matthew Soyster, the reader is lead into the state of mind of people living with disabilities. The essay written by Mairs analyzes how being disabled does not define someone's character, and Soyster expresses the struggles of being crippled and how others view them. Both essays direct the text towards other people who are disabled, or someone who may have a negative view on disabled people. With the use of diction and other devices, Mairs tends to sound more humorous and lively,
…show more content…
Sometime using humor with a negative subject can help to lighten the mood and make it more enjoyable to read. When Mairs went to go to the restroom, she fell backwards, but “[she] was free to laugh aloud as I wiggled back to my seat, my voice bouncing off the yellowish tiles from all direction” (1). When Mairs uses humor in this situation, she lightens the mood and causes readers to laugh with her rather than feel sorry for her. Mairs is trying to get the readers to see this situation as humorous rather than sympathetic. While Mairs wrote her essay using pathos with humor, Soyster wrote his essay to imply a more sympathetic appeal. Soyster’s gradual decline of his legs started with only having to rely on a cane, then eventually having to use a wheelchair after “many thigh-bruising falls and a numbness so intense it turned [his] legs to driftwood” (1). The diction in this essay creates strong emotions the readers feel, thus supporting Soyster’s argument. Using these words creates a more visual image of how the author feels and is a stronger appeal to the readers emotions than laughter would be in this situation. Therefore, Soyster’s use of sympathy rather than humor in pathos to appeal to the emotions of the readers and to support his argument is more …show more content…
After analysis on the attitudes of both author’s and their use of pathos, even though they both use syntax similarly, it is concluded that Soyster’s argument was stronger. Rather than having a positive attitude, his attitude was negative, and this helped the reader to understand exactly what he was going through. Soyster also used sympathy in pathos, rather than humor, to make it clear what his disease did to his life. These devices in Soyster’s essay helped support his argument by causing the reader to realize what it is like to live with multiple sclerosis by understanding how he feels about it.Something people should realize is covering up a story by making it positive is not always the best option. Just like how Soyster was effective in that he told his story even if it was negative, other situations in life can be told like that because that is how some situations are, and this can help the reader better understand what is
Sometime using humor with a negative subject can help to lighten the mood and make it more enjoyable to read. When Mairs went to go to the restroom, she fell backwards, but “[she] was free to laugh aloud as I wiggled back to my seat, my voice bouncing off the yellowish tiles from all direction” (1). When Mairs uses humor in this situation, she lightens the mood and causes readers to laugh with her rather than feel sorry for her. Mairs is trying to get the readers to see this situation as humorous rather than sympathetic. While Mairs wrote her essay using pathos with humor, Soyster wrote his essay to imply a more sympathetic appeal. Soyster’s gradual decline of his legs started with only having to rely on a cane, then eventually having to use a wheelchair after “many thigh-bruising falls and a numbness so intense it turned [his] legs to driftwood” (1). The diction in this essay creates strong emotions the readers feel, thus supporting Soyster’s argument. Using these words creates a more visual image of how the author feels and is a stronger appeal to the readers emotions than laughter would be in this situation. Therefore, Soyster’s use of sympathy rather than humor in pathos to appeal to the emotions of the readers and to support his argument is more …show more content…
After analysis on the attitudes of both author’s and their use of pathos, even though they both use syntax similarly, it is concluded that Soyster’s argument was stronger. Rather than having a positive attitude, his attitude was negative, and this helped the reader to understand exactly what he was going through. Soyster also used sympathy in pathos, rather than humor, to make it clear what his disease did to his life. These devices in Soyster’s essay helped support his argument by causing the reader to realize what it is like to live with multiple sclerosis by understanding how he feels about it.Something people should realize is covering up a story by making it positive is not always the best option. Just like how Soyster was effective in that he told his story even if it was negative, other situations in life can be told like that because that is how some situations are, and this can help the reader better understand what is