For this discussion, I have chosen “Are the Rich Happy?” written by Stephen Leacock (1916) for my narrative essay and “Homeless” written by Anna Quindlen (n.d.) for my descriptive essay. In this essay discussion, I am going to compare/contrast the author’s purpose, the intended audience, and the impact on the reader’s that each author intended to accomplish through the essay that they wrote; I also plan to show that the descriptive essay communicates the author’s point of view superior to that of the narrative essay. In the narrative essay, Leacock (1916) wanted to narrator an essay to show in his own words and through his own experiences what rich people think are problems, that they are not rich they are “pinched” (p2), and that they have more faith in money and possessions than they do in people which makes them bitter over time. Leacock (1916) shows an example of this when he tells of how Mr. and Mrs. Fowler were losing their butler, and it appears to be because of how he his treated; though Mr. Fowler promptly stated it was no fault of theirs, but it was because their butler did not like them (p16). Leacock went on to say that the Fowlers were going to have to rough it and take a ten room four bath suite (1916). While the purpose of Anna Quindlen’s (n.d,.) descriptive essay “Homeless” was written to show that people generalize the homeless as one group of people, not as individuals without a home (n.d., p10). Quindlen goes on to say “you are where you live (n.d., p2)” showing that the Ann the homeless lady that Quindlen had met is at home being homeless at this time in her life; Ann had a house once and to her she was not actually without a home, because that house in the picture that she showed Quindlen would alway... ... middle of paper ... ...things for granite that poor people cherish, and consequently poor people are fulfilled by the little things in life that the rich take for granite. While in contrast, Quindlen’s (n.d.) descriptive essay she used bold details in order to achieve a completely different impact on her reader’s. She wants to show the reader’s, “They are not the homeless. They are people who have no home” (n.d. p.10).The impact Quindlen (n.d.) wanted to have on her reader’s was to tug at their heart and inspire them to help the people that are without a home. (n.d. p.10) Works Cited 2.Leacock, S. (1916). Are the rich happy? In R. Nordquist (Ed.), About.com Guide to Grammar & Composition. Retrieved from http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/Are-the-Rich-Happy-by-Stephen-Leacock.htm 3.Quindlen, A. (n.d.). Homeless. Retrieved from http://pers.dadeschools.net/prodev/homelesstext.htm
Today's world is filled with both great tragedy and abundant joy. In a densely populated metropolis like New York City, on a quick walk down a street you encounter homeless people walking among the most prosperous. Unfortunately, nine times out of ten the prosperous person will trudge straight past the one in need without a second thought. A serious problem arises when this happens continually. The problem worsens when you enter a different neighborhood and the well-to-do are far from sight. Many neighborhoods are inhabited only by the most hopeless of poverty - ridden people while others downtown or across the park do not care, or are glad to be separated from them. Such is the problem in New York City today and in Mott Haven in Jonathan Kozol's Amazing Grace. I have lived in New York City all my life and I had no idea that these problems were going on so close to home. If I live about three miles away from Mott Haven and I am not aware of the situation there, then who is?
Sharon Hays argues that welfare reform policymakers were legislating moral prescriptions for women in poverty who were to take on Welfare aid. I think it could be argued that moral prescriptions on the lives of Welfare recipients was purposeful. Politicians felt Welfare needed to change and help recipients become more self-sufficient over time. This would save money as time went on but would also be a measure of success if less people were on Welfare as time went on. To make Welfare more temporary, inefficiencies had to be addressed and solved. Welfare legislators decided to put the inefficiencies and prescriptions on the recipients themselves and not take into account any other barriers that could be preventing poor individuals and families from getting out of poverty. Moral prescriptions make poverty a cause and solution affair where the cause is moral negligence and the solution is a set of rules and regulations aimed to change morality which will gain people the self-esteem and knowledge to get a job and get out of Welfare.
In Night by Elie Wiesel and Welcome to Hard Times by E.L. Doctorow, the reader witnesses the purpose of hope in one’s life. Wiesel and Doctorow fabricate their works around the trials and tribulations one suffers and what causes one to persevere to continue living. Elie and Blue, characters in the works, experience a life full of suffering and destruction. Even through this, they both live on with a purpose unknown to the reader, and perhaps unknown to themselves. Elie and Blue live on, but to no avail it seems, as both authors end their works with an ultimate destruction of the lives of their characters. However, Wiesel and Doctorow express that Elie and Blue persevere through their lives entirely as a result of hope. These authors suggest that suffering will exist in everyone’s life, and amidst this suffering one often searches for meaning. As Elie and Blue demonstrate, hope determines one’s meaning and purpose in life. Wiesel and Doctorow prove that one’s hope defines one’s existence; however, that hope only masks the futility of life, through the presentation of Elie and Blue’s construction of hope, destruction of hope, and adaptation of hope.
In Shirley Jackson’s short story the Lottery and Flannery O’Conner’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find”, there are a few aspects of a similar nature that attempt to tackle the nature essence of the human condition. Both short stories respectively portray two similar types of foreshadowing where one is random the other is premeditated, which leads these stories to their very surprising dramatic climax that is held until the end of each story. I believe that these important variables of both stories have a strong influence on the reader’s objectification regarding the way each story presents the idea of the human condition.
In "Bums in the Attic," a chapter from her novel The House on Mango Street, Sandra Cisneros discusses the differences between groups in which the upper class ignores anyone not belonging to the same leisure status. Those belonging to the lower classes however, has had to work to gain success and cannot forget the past in which he struggled. In chasing the American dream, the lower class realizes that the only way to gain true happiness from monetary success, one cannot forget his past and must therefore redefine the traditional attitude of the upper class.
Flannery O'Conner has again provided her audience a carefully woven tale with fascinating and intricate characters. "The Displaced Person" introduces the reader to some interesting characters who experience major life changes in front of the reader's eyes. The reader ventures into the minds of two of the more complex characters in "The Displaced Person," Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Shortley, and discovers an unwillingness to adapt to change. Furthermore, the intricate details of their characters are revealed throughout the story. Through these details, the reader can see that both Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Shortley suffer from a lack of spiritual dimension that hinders them as they face some of life's harsher realities. Mrs. McIntyre struggles throughout the story, most notably during the tragic conclusion. Her lack of spiritual dimension is revealed slowly until we ultimately see how her life is devastated because of it. Mrs. Shortley, on the other hand, seems to have it all figured out spiritually -- or at least she believes that she does. It is only in the last few minutes of her life that she realizes all she has convinced herself of is wrong.
...on the homeless community. I previously held preconceived notions that the homeless consisted of people who were either unable to connect and form relationships with others or didn’t desire to do so. Yet, I observed most everyone greeting one another and reminiscing with those who have been absent from the community for a while, as well as, expressing concern for those missing. I recognized that the homeless may live in a non-traditional way, but they have established their own communities and are successful in forming and maintaining cohesive relationships.
A main factor in the storyline is the way the writer portrays society's attitude to poverty in the 18th century. The poor people were treated tremendously different to higher classed people. A lot of people were even living on the streets. For example, "He picked his way through the hordes of homeless children who congregated at evening, like the starlings, to look for the most sheltered niche into which they could huddle for the night." The writer uses immense detail to help the reader visualise the scene. She also uses a simile to help the reader compare the circumstances in which the children are in. This shows that the poor children had to live on the streets and fend for themselves during the 18th century. Another example involves a brief description of the city in which the poor people lived in. This is "nor when he smelt the stench of open sewers and foraging pigs, and the manure of horses and mules" This gives a clear example of the state of the city. It is unclean and rancid and the writer includes this whilst keeping to her fictional storyline.
The Millionaire Next Door written by William Danko and Thomas J. Stanley illustrates the misconception of high luxury spenders in wealthy neighborhoods are considered wealthy. This clarifies that American’s who drive expensive cars, and live in lavish homes are not millionaires and financially independent. The authors show the typical millionaire are one that is frugal, and disciplined. Their cars are used, and their suits were purchased at a discount. As we read the book from cover to cover are misconceptions start to fade. The typical millionaire is very frugal in all endeavors and finds the best discounts possible. A budget is implemented daily, monthly, and annually for a typical millionaire. They live by the budget and are goal oriented. Living well below their means is crucial for a millionaire, and discovering ways to allocate time and money more efficiently. The typical millionaire next door is different than the majority of America presumes. Let’s first off mention what it is not. The typical millionaire is surprisingly not the individual with the lavish house worth a million dollars, owning multiple expensive cars, a boat, expensive clothes, and ultimately living lavishly. The individual is frugal and often looks for discounts for consumable goods. The book illustrates the typical millionaire in one simple word: frugal. It is shocking to believe that this is true, but it does make sense. To achieve financial independence is inherently more satisfying and important than accumulating wealth. According to the book the majority of these millionaires portray characteristics of being sacrificial, disciplined, persistent and frugal. In the book it states, “Being frugal is the cornerstone of wealth-building. Yet far too often th...
In society, the wealth of an individual is determined by the house they live in. In Ragged Company, the character Timber combats this idea by providing an alternate view on the idea of home. The dictionary definition of home according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “one’s place of residence” (Home), however, Timber attaches to the connotative definition. This definition conveys that a home is a place or person where one feels safe and comfortable. Coordinated with this definition, the author of Ragged Company goes into detail of the lives of several homeless people and higher middle class man. These characters interact and evolve with each other in ways that support Timber’s claim. Granite and Digger come from different backgrounds but
What defines a home? Some might argue that it is simply a place of residence, but the truth is, a home holds much more meaning than that of a physical building. A home is a place where you feel truly comfortable and supported by those who surround you. It is the facilitator of a healthy mental state. A question arises, then, of how health is affected by the lack of a stable home. In his book Ragged Company, Richard Wagamese discusses the topic of homelessness through the development of his characters. Amelia Onesky, Timber, Double Dick, and Digger are all self-defined “rounders”; they are chronically, and almost professionally, homeless. They have learned to survive on the streets with next to nothing. When they
On the first part of Quindlen’s essay, the following statement captivated my attention: “Home is where the heart is”. To support this, the author gave examples about her own home and how the smallest and insignificant things were what made her home a place of stability and that is what she loved the most about it. However, it is more than just material things what makes a home, the people you love can also make you feel like home. Towards the end, Quindlen mentions a previous experience with a homeless woman who just wanted a room painted blue, she didn’t care how big or where it was, she just wanted a blue room. Consequently, the author deduces the homeless try to avoid shelters because they will not find what they are looking for there, which
The notion of poverty has a very expanded meaning. Although all three stories use poverty as their theme, each interprets it differently. Consequently, it does not necessarily mean the state of extreme misery that has been described in ?Everyday Use?. As Carver points out, poverty may refer to poverty of one?s mind, which is caused primarily by the lack of education and stereotyped personality. Finally, poverty may reflect the hopelessness of one?s mind. Realizing that no bright future awaits them, Harlem kids find no sense in their lives. Unfortunately, the satisfaction of realizing their full potential does not derive from achieving standards that are unachievable by others. Instead, it arises uniquely from denigrating others, as the only way to be higher than someone is to put this person lower than you.
It’s shown satirically on television, made fun of in music, and joked about in day-to-day activities: being homeless. I don’t understand what’s so funny about being homeless. The struggle to stay alive in an uninviting climate with nothing but the clothes on your back, doesn’t seem very fun. Yet in the media, being homeless is still treated like a joke. In the essay “Homeless” by Anna Quindlen, the reader is shown what it truly means to be without a home. My view on the struggles that homeless people have to endure is very similar to that of Quindlen’s in her essay, which perfectly captured the reality of what it is like to be without a home, and what it truly means to be homeless; while simultaneously demonstrating to me the negative effect
Then, the sand was sunk. She shows poverty as a curse, as a "chisel that chips on honor. " honor is worn away (Parker 239). " Parker starts almost every paragraph with a new definition of what poverty is.