Tell-Tale Heart, 2nd page 3rd paragraph

The first thing I noticed about this paragraph was that "I knew" is repeated many times. These two words make the story creepier, because they show how the character "knew" exactly what the old man was going through, and yet he feels no reason to stop his approach to kill. All of the details seem to either make you shiver or confirm your belief that the main person is crazy. Things like saying the character "pitied him [the man] although I chuckled at heart" is in affect saying that he feels bad... but he really doesn't. When the murderer gets into the man's head, knowing exactly what he's thinking, that when he hears a sound, it must be a cricket or a mouse, the reader cannot help but think, "this guy is insane" because he has a connection to his victim, and yet he feels no remorse. One of the creepiest things he uses is personifying himself as death. After repeating that the man's suppositions had found "all in vain" Death is approaching him and stalking him in his shadow... until he envelopes his victim. Throughout this piece, a repeated image of the main character being a predator, saying he is "stalking" his victim and he "did not move a muscle." Overall, the weirdest thing, subconsciously, about this is that there is no protagonist or antagonist. You don't want the 'protagonist' to do what he wants, and the 'antagonist' hasn't ever wronged his murderer. This is unsettling, because in 99% of all stories, there is a defined protagonist and antagonist, whether or not the antagonist is actually the "bad guy." Overall, all of these details contribute to the horrible creepiness of the piece.

Frederick Douglass Page 7, Paragraph One

The first thing that i noticed was that the cruel man's name is "Mr. Severe." This is ironic because, as an extremely cruel overseer, he is a severe person. The main thing he uses is pathos pathos pathos. When he says the man would "whip a woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at a time" in the midst of her "crying children," your stomach twists, especially the part where they're "pleading for their mother's release." Not only is this a horrible, almost physically painful image, the woman's children were watching, and begging the man to stop. Every time there are children involved, an argument (even a kind of ... passive? One like this, that is telling a story but never coming outright to say his argument) is made stronger, especially pathos. Another example of pathos is when Frederick Douglass says that he seemed to "take pleasure in manifesting his fiendish barbarity." It immediately makes the reader think of a crazed lunatic who enjoys seeing all of his victims suffer. This description of the violent man is further by the man being a "profane swearer" who was "cursing, raving, cutting and slashing among the slaves of the field" from "the rising til the going down of the sun." The repetition of "horrid oaths" (which is repeated more in the rest of the chapter,) emphasizes how awful his language really was. I've also never read a story where you breath a sigh of relief when somebody dies, but when he says, "his career was short," I'm pretty sure most people would agree it was good. This paragraph affected me most,mostly because of the pathos.

Response to Patrick Henry Post

The first thing noticed when reading this passage is the urgency. From what Patrick Henry is saying, the war is "actually begun," and our "brethren are already in the field," making listeners feel like they are abandoning their country. Outstanding, yes. "Brethren" strikes me as a loaded word, too, because it evokes familial ties that were centrally important to Age of Reason gentlemen. Even further, he says that listeners are standing "here idle." He is asking primarily what people are waiting for, and then implying that being idel is a sin Well, yes, but not in the Puritan sense. Just in the sense that inactivity goes against the "just God's" vision because it allows for a tyrant to rob humans of their God-given (by Age of Reason thinking) rights to liberty. by commanding God to "forbid it." This ties in to "puritan hangover," which states that idle hands are the devil's workshop. The pathos of feeling left behind is combined with strong language, such as peace being paid notice alliteration for with "chains and slavery" and God being told to stop it. Rather than saying that people are already fighting, he says "brethren," implying that the people fighting are not just random people: they are part of OUR country, a country we have a right to have. Yup. Nice job--you addressed my earlier note. He also repeats multiple times that "peace" is asked for, but not possible without seeling your soul for slavery. He puts the "gentlemen" in a different group than the audience and himself, asking what "gentlemen wish," but not asking specifically what the audience wishes. Not sure what you're getting at here. Why is this gentlemen section significant? Furthermore, he puts the audience between his argument and the "idle" ones', urging them to make a decision. Perhaps the most powerful thing is the parallel structure/repetition. Right after saying, "the war is actually begun," he rephrases it, saying that soon they will hear "the clash of resounding arms," and that other people are "already in the field." What do you make of these images? The very language issues a call that a listener of conscience cannot ignore. He also asks what the gentlemen wish followed by, "what would they have?" His last line, the most famous of all, is the perfect parallel structure: "give me liberty or give me death!" Not only does this echo in your mind, it is also shocking, and expresses his utter disgust with purchasing peace. Yes, good. He sets it up as an either/or choice, which builds on his use of the slavery analogy through the rest of the piece. Living as a slave, he's suggesting, is not truly living.
Liz, you've done an excellent job with this first post. I can tell you spent a good deal of time thinking through the passage. Keep asking yourself the "so what" questions to help you make your response and analysis more specific. Nice stuff, sister.

Patrick Henry Speech

The first thing noticed when reading this passage is the urgency. From what Patrick Henry is saying, the war is "actually begun," and our "brethren are already in the field," making listeners feel like they are abandoning their country. Even further, he says that listeners are standing "here idle." He is asking primarily what people are waiting for, and then implying that being idel is a sin by commanding God to "forbid it." This ties in to "puritan hangover," which states that idle hands are the devil's workshop. The pathos of feeling left behind is combined with strong language, such as peace being paid for with "chains and slavery" and God being told to stop it. Rather than saying that people are already fighting, he says "brethren," implying that the people fighting are not just random people: they are part of OUR country, a country we have a right to have. He also repeats multiple times that "peace" is asked for, but not possible without seeling your soul for slavery. He puts the "gentlemen" in a different group than the audience and himself, asking what "gentlemen wish," but not asking specifically what the audience wishes. Furthermore, he puts the audience between his argument and the "idle" ones', urging them to make a decision. Perhaps the most powerful thing is the parallel structure/repetition. Right after saying, "the war is actually begun," he rephrases it, saying that soon they will hear "the clash of resounding arms," and that other people are "already in the field." He also asks what the gentlemen wish followed by, "what would they have?" His last line, the most famous of all, is the perfect parallel structure: "give me liberty or give me death!" Not only does this echo in your mind, it is also shocking, and expresses his utter disgust with purchasing peace.