Kingstons Silence vs Goulds Womens Brain - Book Report/Review Example

COMPARE AND CONTRAST RHETORIC IN WRITING Maxine Hong Kingston's "Silence" and Stephen Jay Gould's "Women's Brain" November 6, 2008 COMPARISON OF MAXINE HONG KINGSTON'S - "SILENCE" AND STEPHEN JAY GOULD'S "WOMEN'S BRAIN" Maxine Hong Kingston the author of "Silence" showed the meaning of Silence and how it affects anybody's life. Although her essay is literally speaking about women's silence caused mainly by traditions and customs, and misunderstanding, but it could be applied in general. She is presenting our freedom of speech and of observance of equal rights with each other, regardless of gender and race. Stephen Jay Gould, the author of "Wide Hats and Narrow Minds," focuses on an issue that once became subjects of debates long ago. It is a debate arguing that "brain size and intelligence go hand in hand, the bigger the brain, the higher the intelligence." He collected some information and included it in his essay. There are people who argue that Gould had been so illogical in his essay. On the other hand Kingston had acquired feminists' movements support and criticism from keepers of Chinese traditions stating that her essay is anti-Chinese culture. As of this moment, we will try to compare the two writers writing styles incorporated in these two essays. Is Kingston better than Gould Looking at the ethos of both writings, let us first start talking about the credibility of both writers in dealing with the topic. In these two essays Kingston is more credible in terms of knowledge requirements. Yes, they both are trying to present an argumentative topic both dealing with "discrimination" among individuals that they both know exists in the time of writing their essays. Literally speaking, Kingston is fighting for women's right, while Gould is playing on a neutral stand in the debate of who is superior. Gould in the entirety of the topic did not mention of anything that would support his mastery of the topic, while on the other hand, Kingston showed mastery of the topic by combination of her own experience and real situations of the society. From their, the difficulty of the topic is very clear, Gould's topic is very scientific in contrary to Kingston which is dealing with ethical and cultural issue. Gould did not even prove by himself if brain size has something to do with intelligence. He just cited researcher's works and narrated them in the essay. In the entirety of the essay, he never even showed that he has personally conducted his own experiment or study with brain sizes and its relation to intelligence. He never sounds confident in this essay, perhaps he is just trying to excite people and reopen the debate that happened long ago. He just narrated events and mentioned his main characters-mostly "researchers", and did not even show that he has connection with these people. In his conclusion, he just expressed his own idea and it was not even derived from the researcher's works that he had cited. Perhaps he himself knows that the evidences he gathered are too weak to prove the issue. Well, it is good for him because he never boost by picking a side. His essay would even leave a question about his purpose of writing it, why did he write it Is he hiding an intention that only people like him could find out On the other hand, Kingston's topic is much easier to prove. Her evidences: customs, traditions, events are based on her own experience and observation of what is happening around her. She has incorporated more knowledge in the essay. Her point is clear, and he leaves no confusion about her purpose of writing it. In general, they may differ in terms of mastery, but they both showed sincerity. Did their essay tackle ethical, cultural, and traditional issues For Kingston it is clear, yes She showed the effect of traditions and customs being observed in their society as of the time of her writing. She is giving a clear picture of the discrimination existing between men and women in the society. In Chinese culture, a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock commits a disgustful crime in the society, and against their family. For real observers, they even neglect whoever commits that crime. Her inclusion of some Chinese customs and beliefs and her questioning against it had acclaimed criticism from keepers of Chinese traditions. Gould on the other hand is also talking about discrimination - brain sizes as a measure of intelligence and superiority. Followers of this theory believe that bigger brain size means higher intelligence. Gould did not pick a side on the issue but just wash his hands by saying - "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." By this conclusion, he is clearly giving respect to each individual disregarding brain sizes. It is not the size of the brain that matters, but it is the talent of the individual and his value to the society. He also included a blow against racist researchers-"Such overt racism is no longer common among scientists, and I trust that no one would now try to rank races or sexes by the average size of their brains."(Kingston will be happy if she'll read that!) Kingston wants to achieve equality for women in the society. In general, they both are promoter of moral values. They both showed their respect to everybody. But, have you wonder if ever Gould and Kingston would meet, will they try to measure whose head is bigger Another ethos we need to consider is the way they wrote the lines of their essay. They both use poetic expressions. For instance, Gould wrote in his conclusion: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." And Kingston wrote- "My aunt haunts me--her ghost drawn to me because now, after fifty years of neglect, I alone devote pages of paper to her, though not origamied into houses and clothes. I do not think she always means me well. I am telling on her, and she was a spite suicide, drowning herself in the drinking water." They both use some words and lines that might confuse readers, but Kingston in the line quoted above, provided additional details explaining the connection of drowning herself in the drinking water-" The Chinese are always very frightened of the drowned one, whose weeping ghost, wet hair hanging and skin bloated, waits silently by the water to pull down a substitute." She is actually presenting a tradition here. On the other hand, in Gould's lines quoted above, he never explained the "cotton fields" and "sweatshops." I do not understand it either. Is it an expression Is it a Motto Whatever! It is still confusing. Both writers are using a storytelling style, which makes their essays appears like fragmented. Gould narrated events although in a summarized format, which showed a summary of the debate of brain size and intelligence, but is informative. Kingston also narrated stories of her life, and stories of Chinese cultures. They both did not observe chronological orders of events, because their stories were like humping around the whole story and placing each scene where it would further drive excitement and thrill to the readers. Their paragraphs thoughts are connected with each other although fragmentation is present. Let us consider their targeted audience. Gould's essay is confusing to non wide readers; maybe he is targeting science researchers-people of particular expertise to this topic. His readers must have background with biology, psychology, and other branches of science. For those who do not have knowledge on the technical terms he is using, this will just become information that tells them of a certain event, and the result depends upon our own understanding. On the other hand, Kingston's audiences are those who can read and understanding the language she is using. The totality of her essay made it easier to understand when compared to Gould's "Women's Brain". On the other hand, Gould's essay is just a mere introduction of an issue that was once a topic of debates long ago. He did not present a concrete conclusion from the facts he gathered. The facts itself which is summarized in format makes it poor in proving the issue he is trying to present. Looking at the pathos of both essays, Kingston's essay shows more and could drive more emotion to readers. On the other hand, Gould did not show a clear sample of emotion, he could just merely get those researchers he mentioned, mad. Kingston's emotion ranges from pity-glory. It promotes patience and determination. Her suffering of keeping a secret which "haunts her like ghost" shows the struggle of the real people who feels that they are weak and being controlled by someone who is stronger than them. It drives a feeling of pity for those who became and are still victims of cruelties and discrimination. It drives pity for those people whose voices are unheard in the society. She is trying to convince people that there are people who are weeping in silence, and is asking for our support by showing them due respect. She is showing that everyone of us should be given the right to overcome silence, and be given the right to speak freely what we desire as long as it doesn't do harm to us and to other people. Gould also presented pity for those who became victims of racial and sexism practice in science, and perhaps in other fields of the society. But they both showed the feeling of guilt - for racist and sexism among people. In general, Kingston showed more emotions, in contrary to Gould whose emotions are not the main point. Looking at the logos of both writers, Kingston again had logically defended and supported her topic. Kingston had presented concrete argumentation, while Gould has leaved a hanging question of the relation of brain size to intelligence. Kingston supported his essay with her own experience and observation, showed its existence in reality by presented some Chinese cultures, customs and beliefs. Gould has presented insufficient facts in his essay. He has not even mentioned that he made a self experiment with his topic. He did not answer questions that had arisen in the essay. His conclusion is not based on the facts he cited and it makes it clearer that he has no concrete knowledge about the issue. Both writers showed good ethos - no boosting, sincerity is clearly shown, promoted moral values, criticized malpractice in tradition, customs and beliefs, and in scientific research field. In showing pathos, the choice of their subject made the big difference. Gould may have not chosen the topic properly, but he himself mentioned it - "If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding of their world, not in their distorted perceptions." Writers have their right to speak and break out of Silence. Read More