Pathos In Romeo And Juliet
The overall tone that Anna Quindlen creates is that of injustice, a kind of Romeo and Juliet story to be performed against the backdrop of forbidden freedom and a war based on prejudice against those who differ from us. Quindlen uses language to produce this tone by employing primarily pathos (emotion) and secondly and very limited, logic. Though an ethos style would be of great use to persuade her target audience and move the reader to her point of view, the Undocumented, Indispensable essay lacked this style, unfortunately. Instead, Quindlen’s focus on emotion/pathos leaves the reader feeling defensive and less sadness or pity which would be more of the goal with the well-done use of pathos.
Quindlen intends to relate to the audience through
Logic and Pathos. She uses logic by using key words or phrases that presented as facts and statistics that support her opinion with the intended purpose of convincing the reader to see things on an factual basis. We see this in paragraph 4 telling of the “millions of undocumented immigrants pay income taxes” and “7 billion currently in a designated suspense file” (Quindlen). She counters her argument with “Despite the rhetoric, no one really knows whether they wind up being a loss or a gain for the economy” quote found in paragraph 6 (Quindlen). In paragraph 5 she applies logic again, “In 2004, there was a backlog of more than 6 million unprocessed immigration petitions” (Quindlen).
There are many examples of Pathos in Quindlen’s essay, most notably, “No human being is illegal. I am a worker not a criminal.” found in her opening paragraph (Quindlen). In her closing paragraph she declares, “But there’s no premium in discussing those issues in xenophobic half-truths” (Quindlen). She tries to employ pathos in the body of her essay but many to the determent of Ethos.
Quindlen’s language compromises her ethos. Her passion is seen but also seen is her disrespect to the opposing view. Instead of invoking compassion in her reader, her generalized and over simplified statements diminishes her credibility and reliability. In this sweeping generalization of America, “more-established residents have always found ways to demonize the new-comers” in paragraph 3, she effectively antagonizes those Americans that have never demonized new-comers and belittles the concerns of those opposed to illegal immigration versus the issue of legal immigration (Quindlen). In her pronouncement of “we like our cheap houses and our fresh fruit” in paragraph 8, again she confuses the issues of cheap labor and illegal immigrants. And her argument of “Arizona, for instance, could not keep pace with the demand for new homes at a reasonable cost with immigrant workers, many of them undocumented” is akin to the argument used by pro-slavery advocates reasoning that America would cease to function without slaves. The moral and legal issues are dismissed in such an argument.
I think that Quindlen had some valid points but forgot that we can have opposing ideas, we can have opposing opinions, but once the Ethos is compromised by putting the reader on the defensive or their concern trivialized, the argument is lost and the ability to persuade lost as well.
Quindlen intends to relate to the audience through
Logic and Pathos. She uses logic by using key words or phrases that presented as facts and statistics that support her opinion with the intended purpose of convincing the reader to see things on an factual basis. We see this in paragraph 4 telling of the “millions of undocumented immigrants pay income taxes” and “7 billion currently in a designated suspense file” (Quindlen). She counters her argument with “Despite the rhetoric, no one really knows whether they wind up being a loss or a gain for the economy” quote found in paragraph 6 (Quindlen). In paragraph 5 she applies logic again, “In 2004, there was a backlog of more than 6 million unprocessed immigration petitions” (Quindlen).
There are many examples of Pathos in Quindlen’s essay, most notably, “No human being is illegal. I am a worker not a criminal.” found in her opening paragraph (Quindlen). In her closing paragraph she declares, “But there’s no premium in discussing those issues in xenophobic half-truths” (Quindlen). She tries to employ pathos in the body of her essay but many to the determent of Ethos.
Quindlen’s language compromises her ethos. Her passion is seen but also seen is her disrespect to the opposing view. Instead of invoking compassion in her reader, her generalized and over simplified statements diminishes her credibility and reliability. In this sweeping generalization of America, “more-established residents have always found ways to demonize the new-comers” in paragraph 3, she effectively antagonizes those Americans that have never demonized new-comers and belittles the concerns of those opposed to illegal immigration versus the issue of legal immigration (Quindlen). In her pronouncement of “we like our cheap houses and our fresh fruit” in paragraph 8, again she confuses the issues of cheap labor and illegal immigrants. And her argument of “Arizona, for instance, could not keep pace with the demand for new homes at a reasonable cost with immigrant workers, many of them undocumented” is akin to the argument used by pro-slavery advocates reasoning that America would cease to function without slaves. The moral and legal issues are dismissed in such an argument.
I think that Quindlen had some valid points but forgot that we can have opposing ideas, we can have opposing opinions, but once the Ethos is compromised by putting the reader on the defensive or their concern trivialized, the argument is lost and the ability to persuade lost as well.