Summary Of Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass
Part One
Nabokov says that if a reader “begins with a readymade generalization, one begins at the wrong end and travels away from the book before one has started to understand it.” I believe this is where my biggest flaw while reading originates. Nabokov continues by saying that reading “Madame Bovary with the preconceived notion that it is a denunciation of the bourgeoisie” is the most boring and unfair thing one can do. This is basically what I did, though, when reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Before reading the narrative, I believed I already knew what was going to happen. I thought it would be a retelling of Douglass’s experiences with slavery, like any other, a simple narrative as the title seemingly indicates. …show more content…
This was the wrong thing to do, because of course my preconception was incorrect. Douglass’ narrative is much more than a memoir; it is an extremely strong and effective argument against slavery. Since I didn’t realize this, I initially annotated things that weren’t relevant to Douglass’s purpose. For example, on page 20, where Douglass tells the story of his separation from his mother, I commented: “Slavery was morally wrong even for kids,” which had nothing to do with Douglass’s rhetoric or his argument. I simply annotated it because it was an anecdote that intrigued me. The fact is, though, that Douglass isn’t sharing his anecdotes to entertain his reader; he shares them in order to convince his audience that slavery is wrong. I would’ve never realized this with the mindset that I started reading the narrative with, and I would’ve never truly understood Douglass’s purpose.
In addition to my flawed mentality, I did not take Nabokov’s advice of remaining aloof while reading. Nabokov says: “the worst thing a reader can do, […] (is) identify himself with a character in the book.” To be quite honest, there were most likely more than 10 instances in the novel where I felt that I could relate to Douglass. Now that I think about it, though, that is extremely inaccurate because there is no way I could possibly empathize with Douglass. I have never had to go through anything as gruesome as the abuse Douglass had to endure as a slave. I can at most feel bad for him. For that reason, I should’ve maintained my aloofness and been more realistic while reading.
Despite making a considerable number of mistakes while reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I did do a good job keeping track of the vocabulary in the text. Nabokov mentions a dictionary as one of the four main things a reader should have when reading and analyzing a text. Even though I did not flip through the pages of a 65-pound dictionary – as Nabokov probably envisioned – I did look up every single word I didn’t understand in the text on dictionary.com, which I believe is close enough. There are very few pages where I didn’t have to look up a word; in fact, on some pages such as 29 I defined up to five words. In a text filled with extremely sophisticated diction, such as Douglass’s narrative, I believe that using a dictionary is crucial for comprehension, and I am proud of myself for having this habit.
Although I did do a good job ensuring my comprehension of the words in the narrative, I began reading with the wrong mindset and did not maintain my distance from the characters in the novel. Ultimately, using Nabokov’s standards I would rate myself as a minor reader, because I did more wrong than I did right.
Word Count: 600
Part Two
According to Nabokov, “There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three — storyteller, teacher, enchanter.” Frederick Douglass fits all three of these criteria by telling many captivating stories that teach his audience meaningful lessons.
Throughout his narrative, Douglass proves himself as a storyteller by retelling countless anecdotes that captivate his audience. In over 100 pages of text, Douglass manages to keep his audience engaged because of the sheer number of stories he is able to recount. For example, chapter one is six pages long, yet Douglass goes from the story of his discovery that his father was his master to the story of the first whipping he ever witnessed. He transitions by telling even more stories, such as the separation from his mother or the different masters he encountered while he was a slave. By densely packing his pages with extremely interesting stories, Douglass distinguishes himself as a good storyteller.
Apart from using his stories to enthrall his audience, Douglass uses them to teach his audience of the wrongs of slavery. For example, to show the reader that slavery wasn’t economically beneficial, Douglass not only vibrantly details his first experience in the north with passages such as: “I found myself surrounded with the strongest proofs of wealth. Lying at the wharves and riding in the stream, I saw many ships of the finest model, in the best order, and of the largest size. Upon the right and left, I was walled win by granite warehouses of the widest dimensions” (Douglass 117), but he also uses logical comparisons to prove his point. Soon after, Douglass says “I was for once made glad by a view of extreme wealth, without being saddened by seeing extreme poverty. But the most astonishing as well as most interesting thing to me was the condition of the colored people […] living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average slaveholder in Maryland” (118). The combination that Douglass employs, of logical appeals and captivating stories, clearly proves that Douglass is a powerful teacher.
The final quality of a major writer according to Nabokov is the ability of enchanting the audience. Douglass uses powerful figurative language and vivid imagery to fascinate his readers and give his work the unique feel that Nabokov says is captivating. On page 34, Douglass says “To describe the wealth of Colonel Lloyd would be almost equal to describing the riches of Job.” This allusion-hyperbole combination clearly conveys Douglass’s meaning to the reader, while simultaneously transmitting his unique voice to the reader. Douglass’s use of strong diction to provide his reader with visuals also makes his writing more engaging. On page 77, Douglass says: “Mr. Covey took up the hickory slat […] and with it gave me a heavy blow upon the head, making a large wound, and the blood ran freely; and with this again told me to get up.” By choosing to include details such as the fact that the blow was “heavy and upon the head,” that it made “a large wound,” and that the “blood ran freely,” Douglass paints a clear picture of his situation, and once again illustrates his own writing style.
Ultimately, Douglass’s careful selection of stories to include in his narrative is what makes him fit Nabokov’s three criteria for major writers. The stories themselves prove that he is a storyteller, the lessons associated with them show his teacher-like qualities, and his unique language makes him an enchanting writer.
After analyzing my summer essay, it became clear to me that, unlike Douglass, I was a minor writer.
According to Roskelly, “The very ordinariness of rhetoric is the single most important tool for teachers to use to help students understand its dynamic and practice them” (1). In essence she is saying that one should not overcomplicate a rhetorical analysis, as it is simpler than is to be expected. When writing my essay on the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, this is precisely where I messed up. Since I was not entirely sure what rhetoric was, I had a difficult time being concise. For example, in response to a quote on page 77 relating to Douglass’s pathos I said, “Such despair coming from a person as strong as Frederick Douglass truly shows the reader the effects of slavery, while simultaneously making the reader feel his utter hopelessness. By making his audience empathize with him, Douglass significantly enhances his argument against slavery.” This analysis is very vague and rambling. Instead of actually evaluating Douglass’s rhetoric, I simply restated the prompt and added many unnecessary words that were very …show more content…
superficial.
In addition to this, I did not adequately address Douglass’s purpose.
This is a much deeper problem, though, because purpose is 1/3 of the rhetorical triangle according to Roskelly. Douglass’s purpose is to incite governmental action, whereas I wrote my essay as if his purpose were to achieve empathy, something that wouldn’t even be possible considering his audience of wealthy white men. When I revised this body paragraph, I kept Roskelly’s advice in mind and was more specific and accurate to Douglass’s purpose. I said: “By choosing to include details such as the fact that the blow was ‘heavy and upon the head,’ that it made ‘a large wound,’ and that the ‘blood ran freely,’ Douglass paints a clear picture of his situation. This evokes a strong sense of sympathy in his readers and makes his audience angrier as they feel bad for him, because he is confronted with great violence that he gives up fighting against. This emotional appeal significantly enhances his argument, because Douglass’s audience stands with him instead of with the slaveholders.” In this revised draft I acknowledged Douglass’s use of imagery as a rhetorical device and stated exactly how his quote impacted his audience and purpose. This was a genuine improvement from my first essay to my second one, because it was a rhetorical analysis so it was nice to see some analysis of the rhetoric in the
text.
Overall, on my first draft for my summer essay I did a poor job because my wordiness obscured what I was trying to say and I was unaware of the true meaning of rhetoric. In addition to being ordinary, Roskelly says that rhetoric is the combination of speaker, or inventor; audience, or the intended reader’s expectations, knowledge, and disposition; and subject, or the knowledge, perspective, and evidence in the piece. I did not recognize these aspects in my rhetorical analysis, which makes my original essay extremely weak. Although this is where I made my biggest mistakes, originally, it is also where I enhanced my essay the most. These improvements did not suffice to make me a major writer, and I’m clearly still a bit wordy, but they did help me realize exactly what mistakes I tend to make when writing.
Nabokov says that if a reader “begins with a readymade generalization, one begins at the wrong end and travels away from the book before one has started to understand it.” I believe this is where my biggest flaw while reading originates. Nabokov continues by saying that reading “Madame Bovary with the preconceived notion that it is a denunciation of the bourgeoisie” is the most boring and unfair thing one can do. This is basically what I did, though, when reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Before reading the narrative, I believed I already knew what was going to happen. I thought it would be a retelling of Douglass’s experiences with slavery, like any other, a simple narrative as the title seemingly indicates. …show more content…
This was the wrong thing to do, because of course my preconception was incorrect. Douglass’ narrative is much more than a memoir; it is an extremely strong and effective argument against slavery. Since I didn’t realize this, I initially annotated things that weren’t relevant to Douglass’s purpose. For example, on page 20, where Douglass tells the story of his separation from his mother, I commented: “Slavery was morally wrong even for kids,” which had nothing to do with Douglass’s rhetoric or his argument. I simply annotated it because it was an anecdote that intrigued me. The fact is, though, that Douglass isn’t sharing his anecdotes to entertain his reader; he shares them in order to convince his audience that slavery is wrong. I would’ve never realized this with the mindset that I started reading the narrative with, and I would’ve never truly understood Douglass’s purpose.
In addition to my flawed mentality, I did not take Nabokov’s advice of remaining aloof while reading. Nabokov says: “the worst thing a reader can do, […] (is) identify himself with a character in the book.” To be quite honest, there were most likely more than 10 instances in the novel where I felt that I could relate to Douglass. Now that I think about it, though, that is extremely inaccurate because there is no way I could possibly empathize with Douglass. I have never had to go through anything as gruesome as the abuse Douglass had to endure as a slave. I can at most feel bad for him. For that reason, I should’ve maintained my aloofness and been more realistic while reading.
Despite making a considerable number of mistakes while reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I did do a good job keeping track of the vocabulary in the text. Nabokov mentions a dictionary as one of the four main things a reader should have when reading and analyzing a text. Even though I did not flip through the pages of a 65-pound dictionary – as Nabokov probably envisioned – I did look up every single word I didn’t understand in the text on dictionary.com, which I believe is close enough. There are very few pages where I didn’t have to look up a word; in fact, on some pages such as 29 I defined up to five words. In a text filled with extremely sophisticated diction, such as Douglass’s narrative, I believe that using a dictionary is crucial for comprehension, and I am proud of myself for having this habit.
Although I did do a good job ensuring my comprehension of the words in the narrative, I began reading with the wrong mindset and did not maintain my distance from the characters in the novel. Ultimately, using Nabokov’s standards I would rate myself as a minor reader, because I did more wrong than I did right.
Word Count: 600
Part Two
According to Nabokov, “There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three — storyteller, teacher, enchanter.” Frederick Douglass fits all three of these criteria by telling many captivating stories that teach his audience meaningful lessons.
Throughout his narrative, Douglass proves himself as a storyteller by retelling countless anecdotes that captivate his audience. In over 100 pages of text, Douglass manages to keep his audience engaged because of the sheer number of stories he is able to recount. For example, chapter one is six pages long, yet Douglass goes from the story of his discovery that his father was his master to the story of the first whipping he ever witnessed. He transitions by telling even more stories, such as the separation from his mother or the different masters he encountered while he was a slave. By densely packing his pages with extremely interesting stories, Douglass distinguishes himself as a good storyteller.
Apart from using his stories to enthrall his audience, Douglass uses them to teach his audience of the wrongs of slavery. For example, to show the reader that slavery wasn’t economically beneficial, Douglass not only vibrantly details his first experience in the north with passages such as: “I found myself surrounded with the strongest proofs of wealth. Lying at the wharves and riding in the stream, I saw many ships of the finest model, in the best order, and of the largest size. Upon the right and left, I was walled win by granite warehouses of the widest dimensions” (Douglass 117), but he also uses logical comparisons to prove his point. Soon after, Douglass says “I was for once made glad by a view of extreme wealth, without being saddened by seeing extreme poverty. But the most astonishing as well as most interesting thing to me was the condition of the colored people […] living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average slaveholder in Maryland” (118). The combination that Douglass employs, of logical appeals and captivating stories, clearly proves that Douglass is a powerful teacher.
The final quality of a major writer according to Nabokov is the ability of enchanting the audience. Douglass uses powerful figurative language and vivid imagery to fascinate his readers and give his work the unique feel that Nabokov says is captivating. On page 34, Douglass says “To describe the wealth of Colonel Lloyd would be almost equal to describing the riches of Job.” This allusion-hyperbole combination clearly conveys Douglass’s meaning to the reader, while simultaneously transmitting his unique voice to the reader. Douglass’s use of strong diction to provide his reader with visuals also makes his writing more engaging. On page 77, Douglass says: “Mr. Covey took up the hickory slat […] and with it gave me a heavy blow upon the head, making a large wound, and the blood ran freely; and with this again told me to get up.” By choosing to include details such as the fact that the blow was “heavy and upon the head,” that it made “a large wound,” and that the “blood ran freely,” Douglass paints a clear picture of his situation, and once again illustrates his own writing style.
Ultimately, Douglass’s careful selection of stories to include in his narrative is what makes him fit Nabokov’s three criteria for major writers. The stories themselves prove that he is a storyteller, the lessons associated with them show his teacher-like qualities, and his unique language makes him an enchanting writer.
After analyzing my summer essay, it became clear to me that, unlike Douglass, I was a minor writer.
According to Roskelly, “The very ordinariness of rhetoric is the single most important tool for teachers to use to help students understand its dynamic and practice them” (1). In essence she is saying that one should not overcomplicate a rhetorical analysis, as it is simpler than is to be expected. When writing my essay on the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, this is precisely where I messed up. Since I was not entirely sure what rhetoric was, I had a difficult time being concise. For example, in response to a quote on page 77 relating to Douglass’s pathos I said, “Such despair coming from a person as strong as Frederick Douglass truly shows the reader the effects of slavery, while simultaneously making the reader feel his utter hopelessness. By making his audience empathize with him, Douglass significantly enhances his argument against slavery.” This analysis is very vague and rambling. Instead of actually evaluating Douglass’s rhetoric, I simply restated the prompt and added many unnecessary words that were very …show more content…
superficial.
In addition to this, I did not adequately address Douglass’s purpose.
This is a much deeper problem, though, because purpose is 1/3 of the rhetorical triangle according to Roskelly. Douglass’s purpose is to incite governmental action, whereas I wrote my essay as if his purpose were to achieve empathy, something that wouldn’t even be possible considering his audience of wealthy white men. When I revised this body paragraph, I kept Roskelly’s advice in mind and was more specific and accurate to Douglass’s purpose. I said: “By choosing to include details such as the fact that the blow was ‘heavy and upon the head,’ that it made ‘a large wound,’ and that the ‘blood ran freely,’ Douglass paints a clear picture of his situation. This evokes a strong sense of sympathy in his readers and makes his audience angrier as they feel bad for him, because he is confronted with great violence that he gives up fighting against. This emotional appeal significantly enhances his argument, because Douglass’s audience stands with him instead of with the slaveholders.” In this revised draft I acknowledged Douglass’s use of imagery as a rhetorical device and stated exactly how his quote impacted his audience and purpose. This was a genuine improvement from my first essay to my second one, because it was a rhetorical analysis so it was nice to see some analysis of the rhetoric in the
text.
Overall, on my first draft for my summer essay I did a poor job because my wordiness obscured what I was trying to say and I was unaware of the true meaning of rhetoric. In addition to being ordinary, Roskelly says that rhetoric is the combination of speaker, or inventor; audience, or the intended reader’s expectations, knowledge, and disposition; and subject, or the knowledge, perspective, and evidence in the piece. I did not recognize these aspects in my rhetorical analysis, which makes my original essay extremely weak. Although this is where I made my biggest mistakes, originally, it is also where I enhanced my essay the most. These improvements did not suffice to make me a major writer, and I’m clearly still a bit wordy, but they did help me realize exactly what mistakes I tend to make when writing.