Saturday, 13 December 2014

T2B17

December 13th, 2014

Hey dudsons,

A shorter blog today because after this I need to go to sleep!

A long day today.  I went to Chinese school and it's the last lesson of the year, but when we come back we have to do a big exam.  What a fun way of entering the new year, right?  *sarcastic tone*

Actually, I'll just give you guys a 600-word essay that I did, so it's a superblog!  Please no plagiarism!  It compares Suzuki's It Always Costs and W.S. Merwin's Unchopping a Tree essays.  I hope you enjoy!

**************************************************************************************************************
W. S. Merwin and David Suzuki both express their advocacy for better change and amelioration for the environment in of their uniquely-styled essays.  In Unchopping a Tree, Merwin accentuates his emotions and sentiments towards his main argument and subject, which leads to conveying profound feelings of sympathy, and perhaps even guilt and remorse to his readers.   However, in Suzuki’s It Always Costs, Suzuki uses individual and scientific case studies to elaborate and expound on his topic, but fails to sustain the emotional connection to the reader.  In spite of this, Suzuki’s thesis is much more practical and judicious than Merwin’s thesis.
Both Suzuki and Merwin's essays articulate on protecting the environment and ruminating about the choices humans decide to take.  In Suzuki’s essay, he explicates that one way humans can actualize this goal of protecting the environment is to make more deliberate and conversant decisions, and weigh out both bad and good benefits.  Additionally, Suzuki decries the technologies that were detrimental and perilous to both the environment and people, imparting to the readers that these are the consequences if they decide to make uninformed and oblivious decisions.  On the other hand, Merwin is incontrovertibly more straightforward, and suggests that humans should not cut down trees at all or at least regulate the amount that humans do cut down.   Furthermore, Merwin writes about the acute and deleterious effects on organisms caused by the cutting down of the tree.  While Suzuki implies that humans make more informed actions to help the environment, Merwin allows readers to reflect on their actions through strong emotional language, which creates a sense of personal responsibility in the readers for damaging the environment.
In each of their essays, Merwin and Suzuki both have a completely different approach in writing.  Merwin uses imagery and his meticulous word choices to depict a visual scene for the reader. He wants to show the arduous and tedious process of unchopping a tree when it is not a viable accomplishment, which embarks on his main argument: to not cut trees down at all.  He uses language of violation, such as “tight echoless passages", to create a sense that it’s the readers who need to revolutionize and alleviate the damages of the environmental world.  Additionally, Merwin employs a metaphor in his essay, but it actually conceals a much deeper meaning in his essay.  On the other hand, Suzuki's essay is very practical and factual. This eradication of description and emotional tone creates a sense of formalism and conformity, and although he fills the minds of his readers with an abundance of scientific ideas, he only focuses on his main argument: Technology always comes with a cost.
While Suzuki’s thesis is practical and pragmatic, Merwin’s thesis is unfeasible.  Suzuki’s main argument is that technology always comes with a cost, and humans have to be vigilant and conscientious of the detrimental and nocuous effects that may affect the well-being of the environment.  On the other hand, Merwin’s thesis and main argument states that humans must stop all deforestation, which is an unviable demand.  His demand to terminate and expunge all forest harvesting is impossible as humans simply cannot stop the use of wood entering their daily lives; it has become an imperative commodity.  On the other hand, Suzuki’s technical jargon and elaborative language proves to be effective in terms of promoting his thesis;  Technology always comes with a cost is a straightforward and practical statement.  However, both Suzuki and Merwin express in these theses that humans must be careful in their actions and try to be conservative of the environment.   
So while Suzuki uses his scientific acumen to convey his advocacy for the environment to the readers, Merwin ponders about deforestation in a more emotional way than Suzuki, exemplifying how cutting down even one tree can prove to be pernicious and nocent to the environment.  Additionally, while Suzuki’s thesis is efficacious in terms of practicality and feasibility, Merwin’s thesis is preposterous and unfeasible.  While Suzuki and Merwin share some similarities, they also have some contradicting points. 

**************************************************************************************************************
--Cyndi Forrest            

No comments:

Post a Comment