Rewritten Versions

Language can change the way we read a passage. Authors write in a way that the reader can feel a certain way. If authors didn’t write their books like this reading would be boring. In “Romeo and Juliet” Shakespeare wrote so that you could feel the love between them. In John Green’s “The fault in our stars” he uses metaphors. Martin Luther King, jr` a strong persuasive voice, he could use this to make his speeches even stronger than they already were.

Graff then goes on to establish his ethos in the first few paragraphs while continuing to expand the thoughts and ideas on pathos throughout his essay. He begins to build his community and trust by recognizing his own credentials and sharing his personal background in writing. One of the first things noticed from the footnote about Gerald Graff’s professional career is that he has vast experience in the writing department. He is an English professor at a prestigious university, a past president of the Modern Language Association, and part of the professional association of scholars and teachers of English and other languages (198). But, since his background only assists his argument and does not define it, it is crucial to also look at his word choice, mood, language, and ideology in order to fully claim Graff a credible author.

Each story makes use of a very unique tone and form of narration yet these same qualities can be compared to some extent across these essays. The authors utilize different forms of writing to convey their intended focus to the audience. I found each story relative to one another in that they all seemed to touch of the subject of the roles of different genders in our contemporary society maybe even across different cultures.

He provides as examples, the stories of Abraham and Sarah whom the Israelites relate to because they are landless ancestors, who endure “awful” experiences yet receive hope in their promises from the deity. Similarly, Carr argues that the narratives of Joseph and Moses resonate with Israelites because their stories mirror the Israelites’ fates and allows those who are living in exile to speak of their suffering and hope in discreet ways. What is interesting is how when describing the experiences of Abraham, Sarah, especially regarding their experience of Isaac being “almost-sacrificed,” and Joseph and Moses, Carr describes their experiences of loss, violence, enslavement, genocide, exposure, and secret-parenting as awful or dramatic experiences instead of traumatic. He claims these stories works powerful as individual dramas but fails to see them as traumatic in an effort to keep the readers focalized on collective trauma. However, not naming individual experiences of trauma as such proves to distract the reader as one is forced to consider the ethical implications of Carr glossing over individual trauma in an attempt to drive his thesis. I believe Carr’s thesis can be enhanced if he is willing to take opportunities to hone in on individual trauma

In another way, these two stories are different because the authors have been using different perspective when narrating the story.

The lack of Abram's verbal acquiescence, however, may be interpreted in a different light. Although he leaves his home and moves into the land of Egypt, in apparent acceptance of the promise, once there, he sells his wife Sarai into prostitution out of fear that he will be killed (Gen. 12:11-15). God promised Abram previously that He would protect him: "I will bless them that bless thee and curse those that curse thee" (Gen. 12:3 ). Yet, Abraham fears for his life and exploits Sarai. If Abraham was blindly and fully obedient, as the traditional view assumes, why does he doubt God's promise of protection and consequently bring shame upon Sarai? The text depicts an Abraham who is struggling with personal doubt and who decides to take matters into his own hands rather than trust the possible promises of a God unseen.

Second, within this same introductory comment, Neifile uses similar logic to establish why Abraham has not yet converted. With the mention of the phrase "in word," Neifile suggests that Abraham has not seen God’s "loving-kindness" partly because he has not declared witnessing it. Right from the start of the story, Neifile implies that Abraham’s conversion hinges not on his beliefs or convictions, but on his verbal acknowledgement of Christianity. Abraham, however, is adamant in his refusal to convert. He considers "no faith to be sound and holy except the Jewish" (1.2.38), which means that the act of conversion to him is undesirable. In the story, however, the impression given by Neifile’s comment is that Abraham must simply say that he has converted; he does not have to embrace any ideological changes to his beliefs. Here, the fact that expression of Christianity is more important than actual conversion emphasizes the notion that labels can almost instantaneously transform a person from one state (unconverted) to another (converted).

Both stories present the idea of differentiating points of view between the narrator and their parent. Also, each narrator is forced to deal with the absence of one of their parents, whom they associate with an easier, better life. These two details create tension in both stories because each narrator is unsatisfied with their current living conditions. They believe that the presence of their missing parents would eliminate many of the problems they face in their everyday lives. However, though they wish it to be true, this is not so, and both narrators admire their missing parent more than their current guardians.

In both narratives it is present the God’s will and what he does two these two people in different situations. In one hand he gives a guy a way to express delightful verses from history or religious matters and on the other he simply liberates a suffering woman from her pain and transform her into a person of good, but these two narratives have a twist on how these gift is given to them and in how they both obtain them.

Regardless of the undeniable strong faith both Abraham and Moses have towards God, they often doubt him and influenced God’s Decisions. It is easy to regard Abraham and Moses as blind followers of God, followers who completely trust and agree with God; because they always end up complying with God’s commands. Nevertheless, they speak up against God’s plans without always believing God will do as he

This piece talks about a topic that I am familiar with. Writing for an audience is something I do just about every week for one of my classes. Flower writes about how different audiences will expect different types of writing. I thought it was interesting how different sayings can be interpreted in different ways. With that being said, It was brought to my attention that just saying a lake can be two totally different interpretations. One being pleasant and one being miserable.

These two texts have both consonant and disparate concepts that surely contrast and compare to each other astutely, which consist of their respective plots, the personas of the main protagonists, and the edifying influence of their themes.

So as we can see although Abraham has no children and own no land but he wasn’t a poor man, he actually had a family Sarah and his nephew Lot, possessions and I can imagine that would be things like animals and gold, and persons, people who were “acquired” in Haran it most likely means he had servant or could means friends and family who wanted to join Abraham in his journey. Abraham showed trust in God because he didn’t leave his wife, nephew and belongings at Haran and went to Canaan to secure or prepare for them, he actually decided to follow and do what God have told him to do. In this story the author showing lots of trust not only Abraham but even Sarah and Lot, we don’t see them questioning Abraham or refusing the God’s offer, it actually reveals that Abraham was the foremost person to make the decision which is following and trusting in God’s word. “The verb used for journeying (nāśa') means, literally, to pull up tent pegs—a detail that captures the stage by stage nature of Abram's movement. There is frequent use, too, of the verb “to go/walk.”

The character and the language remain the same. The aspect of having an unsuccessful adoption also remains; however, the adjusted chronology causes the two stories to no longer be identical. Evidently, the stories have varying storylines. For instance, the Letter, depicts a woman waiting for the news that her adoption was successful. In the other story, Gratitude, the woman had already been given the letter, therefore, she has developed the gratitude for the blessings in her life. The dialogue was rearranged and the location of paragraphs were both changed in order to disrupt the chronology of the first story. Changing the timeline caused the storyline to change because when the character had already been given her dream, the character could no longer be anxious and wait for this dream. Additionally, changing the timeline also caused the storyline to change because it made more to add a flashback into the story and then refer to the events in the flashback in the past

Furthermore, we have the use of first person, where the almost universal effect is to have an in-depth look into the character and their immediate response to a problem or dilemma. This poem no different, where in the first stanza we are ushered in with the use of anaphora in lines 2, 3 and 4 with the repetition of the word ‘’and’’. This specific use of anaphora is used to create the mindset and intelligible deduction of the traveller to the events and dilemma prescribed to him. Insofar as his immediate reaction be being presented with a choice. It shows his reaction of regret in that he is ‘’sorry he could not travel both’’ and explains what he wish he could do ‘’be two travellers’’ but also how he initiates his decision making process ‘’looked down one as far as I could’’. Also, the use of first person is used to connect with the reader, enforcing the affore-used notion that the reader substitutes their own personal truth into a positive