Anna Quindlen Doing Nothing Is Something

The two persuasive essays called “Doing Nothing is something” by Anna Quindlen and “Kids Really Aren’t Overscheduled” by Salynn Boyle are trying to persuade the reader to believe their point of view of the idea that kids have “too much to do.”Anna Qindlen thinks that kids have too much to do and when you’re doin nothing, you actually at your best. She thinks that when someone is “bored to death” that creativity and ingenuity are in the peak of action. On the other hand, Salynn Boyle says that we don’t have too much to do. She says that playing sports and other activities keep kids out of trouble and it usually benefits them in a way that nothing else will. I would agree more with Salynn Boyle because kids should do more and it keeps them off the streets selling dope or boosting cars. Going out and doing something teaches the kid
something that he/she will never learn by going to school or college.
It teaches them qualities such as determination, team-work, mental toughness, and most of all, having fun.

Anna Quindlen is more centered on pathos. She tries to move the reader to thinking how she does. More times than not, she uses sympathetic reasons instead of factual or logical reasoning. She stated ”It is not simply that it is pathetic to consider the lives of children who don’t have a moment between pianno and dance and homework to talk about their day or just search for split ends, an enormously satisfying leisure-times activity of my youth.” She uses loaded words such as, pathetic, moment, split ends, enormously, and satisfying that reveal an attempt to make the reader be sympathetic to her cause. She uses a flashback to her
childhood to make the readers relate to her idea. Quindlen comes back with ethos immediately. She backs up some info with research to make the reader have mixed feelings of relation and factual sense. She says “There is also ample physiological research suggesting that what we might call “doing nothing” is when human beings actually do their best thinking and when creativity comes to call.” She makes one of her best points in saying this because I totally agree that we all need some quiet relaxation amidst all this hetic scheduling and fast-paced media. She later uses logos because she wants the solution to be apparent, or obvious. Anna says “There is a culture of adult distrust that suggest a kid who is not playing softball or attending sciences enriching programs-or both- is huffing or boosting cars; if kids are left alone, they will not stare into the middle distance and consider the meaning of life and how come your nose in pictures never likes the way you think it should, but instead they will get in trouble.

----Chris I forgot to post to blackboard after I added to this essay so I’m just going to start on the fourth paragraph. ------

As you can tell, these two authors have completely different ideas about kids having too little or too much to do. They use pathos, logos, and ethos to persuade the reader; each using ethos to help their opinions. Quindlen used pathos the most because she shoots for the sympathetic thoughts to flow to the reader fluently. She flashes back to her childhood more than once that got me thinking for her side of the cause. On the other hand, Boyles takes a completely different appoach using logos to reason with the reader and make the stand on it apparent. She also uses very credible people, as Quindlen also, to back up her opinions. These two authors come at the topic from different tactics and directions but both are very persuading.

In conclusion, Quindlen hits hard with the pathos and uses some backup with ethos. She makes good points and makes the topic debatable. Boyles relies heavily on logos and also backs up with ethos. These two good authors know how to get their point across from different angles. Both find ways of “hitting home” whether saying kids have too much or not enough activities. Each have good credibility to back up some of their opinions.