Analysis Of Oh Brother By Richard Shone

In the 2011 essay by Richard Shone entitled, “Oh brother!” Shone tries to argue, while the information the book presents is not necessarily new, the different ways in which the authors approach the subject makes for a worthwhile read. Yet, Shone often contradicts his own claims, his diction often invalidates what he said previously, he establishes credibility for the authors then points out their biases which destroy it, he uses faulty pathos to invoke dismay which results in an inconsistent and chaotic essay. He fails to adequately address his arguments claim and his purpose of the review of the book, for a book review serves to either praise and persuade others to read it or decry it and critique it for its flaws. The author seemingly does both which creates confusion for the reader as to where he stands, and as to why he’s chosen to write this essay.

Furthermore, his diction contributes to condemn and muddle his argument. For instance, towards the start of the essay he praises the book and calls it “…extremely readable…even startlingly [fresh with a] re-interpretive…” perspective on old

His use of language and diction further denounce his claims that the book’s enjoyable, which often resonates negatively with the reader and as a result, he isolates his audience by initial biases towards the subject and authors. He strives for objectivity, yet fails to take his personal feelings out of the equation. His over analysis of the book ends with the reader not fully sure exactly what side he’s on. His attempts to back up his claims hurt his initial statements and his evidence only detracts from what he argues at the start. The crux of the matter is the author’s explanation and evidence consists of holes that make up a vague argument where one cannot discern or distinguish a purpose to this