In this
essay Joy Williams, a teacher of creative writing and a fiction writer, devotes
her writing to express the anger she feels towards the way humanity misuses
Earth without being conscious of the consequences of doing so. She begins by
attacking societies egocentric worldview, where people have given up on nature
in the search of self-fulfillment. People look away from nature because they
know that it will be destroyed by human interests and thus feel guilt. This lack
of regard for nature is partially due to the fact that society believes it has
outgrown it, as is seen in the lack of true meaning behind the cause those
trying to protect nature, the environmentalists. These environmentalists
compromise the health of earth’s nature for the economic benefits some
pollution has for industrialists and farmers. She then goes over a number of scenarios,
transitioning form those who produce to the consumer, exposing the lack of
regard for nature and the way society abuses it. She begins to testify about
the directly proportional relationship of over-harvesting and over-consuming
shrimp while destroying the lives of many aquatic animals. She continues to
state that growth is the norm, society cannot say no to it but they rather go
with it, even though it may destroy everything around them. This same belief
allows society to fall prey to the new investments in housing which destroy
nature and replace it with what society wants of it. Furthermore, the
consumerist society believes that in order to break their own patterns they
must be given proof that if they don’t stop the world will become
uninhabitable. She continues by having a
conversation with the reader while also answering for the reader, showing how
the reader would react because of society’s humanistic beliefs and lack of
concern for nature. She concludes her essay by establishing that change can
only be made when individuals begin to change and begin to fight against, what
the author calls, a “moral issue.”
In her
essay Joy William is attempting to persuade the audience to think through the
fallacies of society, challenging them to see the destruction culture has
brought to nature. She is very affective at conveying this message through the
use of narration, description, and cause-and-effect. She is able to incorporate
these through her clear transitions which complement her constant change in
subject. Her essay was very fluid, clearly transitioning from the different
parts of her essay without losing the reader. Furthermore, she is capable of
staying on track for the most part, following a set thesis and focus, to
challenge modern beliefs about nature and the inefficiency of the world’s
attempt to stop its destruction. Her title is misleading, for the reader assumes that whales will have some important part in her essay. Nevertheless, the title carries meaning for at one point, when the author is carrying a dialogue with her self and establishing counter-arguments, she mentions the whale which is seemingly a concern in the eyes of society. Even so, the reader has allowed the destruction of nature and its wildlife, including fish. This double standard in society is part of what incapacitates it, preventing it from seeing the wrong behind what they do. Moreover, the author does a good job overall, expressing her emotions to convey the harm society is causing. She appeals to both the reader's logic, emotions, and ethics to promote her point. She does this by introducing different scenarios which play off of society's failures and by presenting the facts which shed light to the incapacity of mankind to fulfill their role as protectors of the environment. Finally, she proposes how society can change and act, giving the stage to the reader to make their stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment