I attempted to emulate Birkerts’ essay in at least some respects although there are numerous differences between mine and his. I like the way he used oppositions throughout his piece in order to get his point across. It also set up an easy organizational scheme. I would like to carry that organization over into my own essay. I don’t think I have that quite figured out in my own essay yet but I plan to work on that this week.
In many ways, Sven Birkerts’ essay is quite different from mine. First of all, “The Owl Has Flown” flows very smoothly and transitions easily from one topic to the next. My essay, on the other hand, lacks smooth transition. I change topics rather choppily. Furthermore, my essay doesn’t have a lot of varied sentence length. The majority of my sentences are pretty long although they don’t really seem to ramble. Birkerts also uses extensive examples and historical evidence to justify his argument and persuade the reader. My essay doesn’t have much evidence as support; I only use the references to the two articles in Making Sense.
These two essays have two main similarities. Firstly, both use a critical structure. Birkerts pushes for a change in the way we currently read and take in information. I would like to alter art’s current trend when it comes to style and subject matter. We both have a specific goal in mind. The other similarity is the perspective of the essay. Both are personal opinion and are subjective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment