The first article I read, Bathing-it's utility, was based on the different types of bathing. The article opened with a quote, "cold is bracing, heat is relaxing", in which the author disagreed with. I thought it was an interesting technique the author used to start off with. He then went on to talk about the different methods of bathing (some of which I never heard of). The second submission I read was a sonnet titled, "Sonnet on the death of words worth". I found this sonnet to be very confusing. What I retained from it was the poet technique. He used imagery and description of the poet and then related them to each other. The last couple readings covered topics like astronomy, America's rapid growth, and a biography on Sir Edward Coke. The last couple readings I found hard to read. The style the author wrote in was confusing. I was unable to relate to the topics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm interested in the last sentences of this blog because we talked about it a little in class today. We talked about "fluff" and drawn out writing. However, I felt like we talked about it in a negative connotation. We must remember that these writings are over 150 years old. It is not that is bad writing, the issue is that the english language has evolved in that time. People do talk in differently today than they did in 1850, albeit I wouldn't directly relate it to a change in lifestlye. I would prefer to connect it to the brothel of nationalities that have come together in the last century and a half. Not only have these nationalities come together, they have lived together (in relative harmony) and this socializaation has created different dialects. Colloquialisms have evolved and so has the language. These articles aren't necessarily written poorly, just differently.
ReplyDelete