Close Reading #4: Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?

“Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?” by Nicholas D. Kristof illustrates the urgent need for the American government to regulate guns more effectively in the light of the school shooting in Connecticut. His use of statistics and detailed descriptions of other countries’ gun control policies, syntactical use of rhetorical questions, and reasonable and yet emotional diction, create an argument based on reason but backed by emotion.

Kristof uses statistics and detailed information about other countries’ efforts to control the availability of guns to effectively convey the necessity of stricter gun regulation in America. In the statement that “Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries,” he uses both the strength of numbers and the shocking contrast between America and other first world nations to illustrate the great disparity between them. If he had merely said, “a lot of kids are dying in America compared to other countries” without any statistics, he would not have produced the same shock effect in the reader. Once again, Kristof makes good use of statistics regarding the benefits of gun regulations when he says, “…if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually.” This statistic intensifies the gravity of the situation by changing mere statistics into lives, demanding both a logical and an emotional response. By using Australia and Canada as examples of how these mass shootings have been diminished through strict and active gun regulation, Kristof forces the reader to look critically at the American government for not taking the appropriate actions when other countries have laid out a roadmap towards effective gun regulation.

Kristof’s use of diction attempts to emphasize his argument’s foundation on reason and rationalistic thinking, but he continues to subtly evoke the audience’s emotion in support of his views throughout the article. Early on in his article, Kristof calls on his audience to “treat firearms rationally…” because “The United States realistically isn’t going to bad guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.” By calling on the reader’s reason and rational thinking, Kristof leads the reader to read the article without fear of extreme, emotionally-driven solutions. This allows Kristof to present his argument at the end of the article in a more drastic way and the reader will still likely think that he has a fair and reasonable argument. What is interesting is his choice of the word “carnage” in the very same sentence. While the word is quite accurate in describing the tragic shooting in Connecticut, it gives greater impact to the situation than if he had used “deaths.” In his final thoughts, Kristof uses the most rational of language when he describes how America has “required seat belts…introduced limited licences…tries to curb the use of mobile phones…All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality…” This paragraph’s emotionally empty diction leaves the reader unprepared for the emotional punch of his final lines: “Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.” Kristof’s simple diction in this final thought only goes to intensify the drastic situation he presents.

Regarding syntax, Kristof demonstrates a love of rhetorical questions in place of statements to end his paragraphs. For example, his first sentence ends with “Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?” By doing this, Kristof allows the reader to start thinking about the questions for themselves, instead of just listening Kristof’s argument. Another time, the rhetorical question “What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.,?” gives the reader a moment to contemplate this thought and to come up with their own answer, which is most likely one of disgust.

Kristof’s use of details, syntax, and diction Kristof presents a reasonable argument that is still full of emotion.

Link to Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?_r=0

Open Prompt #4

1979. Choose a complex and important character in a novel or a play of recognized literary merit who might on the basis of the character's actions alone be considered evil or immoral. In a well-organized essay, explain both how and why the full presentation of the character in the work makes us react more sympathetically than we otherwise might. Avoid plot summary.

The actions of Willy Loman, the main character in Death of a Salesman written by Arthur Miller, may be considered foolish or immoral at face value, yet as the play reveals more information about Willy’s difficult life, the reader develops a certain sympathy for this troubled character. This essay will focus on how his many shortcomings regarding his family are rooted in psychological conditions that have formed his less than perfect character.

Initially, Willy appears to be a terribly irresponsible parent, particularly during a flashback in which he does nothing to punish Biff for stealing a football, flunking math, and even acting “ruff” with girls. However, as the reader learns more about Willy’s history, his bad parenting changes from a straightforward character trait to the result of a series of formative life experiences. His father deserted his family when Willy was very young, so Willy never had a father to nurture or discipline him. Knowing this, the reader’s perspective shifts to view Willy’s ill-parenting skills as at least partially a result of his father’s absence from his life.

Another alteration in the reader’s perspective occurs when we realize that Willy’s fixation on Biff being “well-liked” results from his own experience as a salesman, which has taught him that one’s success depends on being well-liked rather than hard-working or morally sound. His brother Ben was able to become rich in a matter of seconds because he was well liked – at least according to Willy. As a father, Willy does desire the best for his son Biff, but fails to recognize that love and discipline are just as, if not more, important than popularity.

Another instance where Willy’s actions initially seem despicable is when the reader discovers that Willy is “selling” himself to a receptionist so he can get in with a buyer. Without any other background information, it is easy to judge Willy as an immoral and heartless husband, but once again Willy demands the reader’s sympathy when his motivation is taken into account. While his act of adultery is morally reprehensible, his motivation lies in his love for his family. His business has never been good and he is willing to do anything to make enough money to provide for his wife and children, even to the point of prostituting himself. Knowing this, Willy’s infidelity transforms from an act of selfishness to an act of selflessness.

Reading only an excerpt of Death of a Salesman, it may seem that Willy is an irresponsible father and an unfeeling husband, but on the contrary, further examination of the text changes the readers reaction to Willy from judgment to sympathy.