I decided to write fiction instead of non-fiction for three reasons. The first reason is that I wanted the characters to have conversations, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to know exactly what the characters said to each other. Even reviewing primary sources such as letters, and essays by the characters, they will have contradictory versions of events. So I did not want to open myself up to criticism for not being accurate. The second reason is what I just touched on, many of the events in Victoria’s life are recorded by different sources and these sources contradict each other.
To my knowledge. And back to the writing in general - poor, at best. I couldn 't take the writing seriously, because it seemed choppy and almost conversational, but not a good kind of conversational. Like a conversational with someone that isn 't telling the story well. It was like the author was trying too hard for this book to be fun and light and cute... but it just seemed silly and poorly written.
One weakness that stood out upon reading the novel was how it jumped around between the stories of Ida Mae, George, Robert, the historical background, and other information Wilkerson was trying to give to her audience. It seemed that there was too much information. Due to all of this jumping around, there was a lot of unnecessary repetition made within stories that could have been avoided in cutting down sections. Finally, it seemed that Wilkerson was trying to emphasize the migration too much as she mentioned several times throughout the novel that her parents were a part of this historical event. While these are minor weaknesses, they made the receiving of the information difficult to comprehend.
Similarly, Lavanya’s article portrays her stand clearly but is unable to reach the readers due to the use of complex words, intricate examples and analogies. Both Lavanya’s article and Ashlie’s article appear to be equally weak as they fail to understand the potential readers, to have an efficient style of writing and to provide credible evidence to substantiate their claims. Although Ashlie’s article is written in vernacular language, readers still find it difficult to understand and relate to it. It’s mainly the changing stands of the writer which confuses the readers. For instance, she initially states, “it comes down to recognizing that our attitude towards food from different cultures can in turn inform our attitude about said cultures”
Having an indistinct purpose or changing purpose makes the audience confused and sometimes causes them to stop reading. In the essay it seems the author wanted the audience to stop being so wasteful but on the other hand it seems Eighter is trying to explain the way to live out of dumpsters. In a way both purposes counteract each other. One is saying people need to stop being so wasteful and the other is saying that people are always going to be wasteful so here’s a guide to help you make it. Even though Lars Eighter purpose was a little foggy, the story
These problems require the reader to infer most of the information and context, which is contradictory to the purpose of a visual medium. In short, the author is summoning many facts and statistics to establish a strong logical appeal, but is failing to structurally connect these points, clearly deliver her argument to the audience, or effectively utilize the format of a visual essay to her convenience. This is why I believe that “Apples to Oranges” is ineffective in persuading its intended audience. The first impression that I felt as a reader after reading this essay was confusion. This is largely caused by the ambiguous nature of the infographics.
To be sure, there are some weaknesses in the book. The book is a collection of ideas that the author had jotted down so, the contain in the book are not related to each other which make difficult for the reader to grasp what the author want to say. There is no proper beginning and proper ending in the book which makes the book a bit incomplete. Nevertheless the book provides a valuable and absorbing window into aging. Although, the author discusses more about dependence, disability, loneliness, ageism, it is the thing most of the old people face.
In this case, her convenience is more important than the truth. Daisy is a victim of denying what is below the surface. This is seen in many different aspects throughout the novel. By approaching reality in a deeper way, everything will automatically become more complicated in countless ways. Even as readers, we do not know everything there is to know, especially when dealing with Jay Gatsby, but what we do know still manages to be contradicted by the complicated character of Daisy.
Author Veronica Stafford’s article “Texting and Literacy” claims that text messaging is detrimental to education, schoolwork, reading, literacy, as well as personal relationships and social communication. Stafford deduces that “Due to the prevalence of text message communication versus face to face social interactions or phone calls, a considerable number of nonverbal cues are lost and some essential (things) are not being conveyed properly” (Stafford). Additionally, she recognizes that the shorthand form of communication that text messaging not only accommodates but advocates, is hindering students’ capability to form and convey a coherent thought in schoolwork and eventually the workplace or lack thereof, if Stafford’s prediction holds true.
But what makes the suicide numbers so different is it opportunities, or can it be isolation that separates these two cities. In the textbook Discover Sociology by William J Chambliss and Diana S. Eglitis, they explain in more debt why suicide occurs where it does. In the book Suicide by Emile Durkheim, he explains his theory on suicide. And in the vast list of websites there is more information about suicide and the unhappiness