Analysis Of John Sullivan's Essay 'Violence Of The Lambs'

441 Words2 Pages
The nonfictional essay “Violence of the Lambs” is about 40 percent implausible information so John Sullivan can show how simple it is for humans to read information and freak out because people are conditioned to fear. He knows people will believe the worst case scenarios that he includes in the essay. In the beginning of the text, Sullivan introduced Marcus Livengood, who is a fake character. He is made up, so readers will believe that the evidence is true like when they explain Steve Irwin’s death, and the big Bloop. These attacks and phenomena are relatively true in content but not accurate in substance. Sullivan fictionalizes the plausible parts of the essay while the implausible parts are facts to prove that humans think of the worst case scenarios because it is our primary way to process information. They made Steve Irwin’s death…show more content…
In the essay he claims he researched it, it is about how a navy spy microphone picked up a sound so large it is louder than any animal known to man, so large it made a sound equivalent to what an undersea earthquake would make. If the reader researched it, they would find that the big Bloop is the result of an ice quake, not some biological Animalia. Sullivan tells the reader to look it up, knowing they will not because he knows the reader will most likely believe the worst case scenario in the text. By fictionalizing the plausible parts of the essay while making implausible parts as facts, Sullivan proves that humans think of the worst case scenarios because it is our primary way to process information. The events from Steve Irwin’s death and the big Bloop are correct in context, but not in substance. By adding implausible details and worst case scenarios to both events, the reader will process the information and freak out because our culture is conditioned to
Open Document