1. Sanders uses his own personal experiences to argue his opinion. He also quotes and excerpts from text to strengthen his argument. He believes that being rooted to one area makes you a stronger individual. He explains his idea of why people refuse to move is because their too invested. That their too invested by the community and all the hard work they've put into their homes. I can't really comment too much on what he should do to help compliment his essay, because I completely disagree with his argument. I feel no matter what he tries to explain in his argument I'll still won't accept his views.
2. The overall tone of the essay is just strange to me. Why I say this is because Sanders makes it seem that if you never settle at one place and move constantly, you will never grow as a person. I think it's strange because hardly you ever find circumstances like this. I feel if as Sanders is completely inconsiderate and ignorant for the reasons of why people move from the essay. Another thing is what he's arguing I believe it to be contradicting. People can still develop a connection to our world even if they decide to move from time to time. "In belonging to a landscape, one feels a rightness, an at-homeness, a knitting of self and world." (para. 22) There is no clarity and no sense made in his beliefs. That is why i find the tone of the essay strange. Richard Ford's essay however is more convincing and engaging because it's more straight up to me. Sanders idea lacks clarity while Ford's does. I don't agree with Ford's message as well, but I can understand where he is coming from. Both of these essay have the same theme in a way. The author's just have different beliefs of the idea of "home".
No comments:
Post a Comment