The author’s approach to his essay
has a little bit more obvious structure than what I usually read in an English
class. He goes through what are probably frequently asked questions and answers
them from his own point of view as an open introvert. I think his structure is
not as effective as a traditional essay format because the reader gets the impression
that he is writing more informally. Informal writing can sometimes be seen as a
more personal message to the reader, but this essay gave me the impression of
something I would read in a forum rather than a journal.
At a few
points during his essay he connects to the reader’s astonishment by bringing up
how serious some of his facts are. For instance, he references an article “Why
Should Extroverts Make all the Money?” and follows it with “(I’m not making
that up either)” (Rauch 3). This piggybacks on the informality of his writing,
but in the positive sense of connecting to his readers.
The
author’s view on extroverts seems very senile and hateful. Jonathan Rauch does
not appreciate the way that extroverts treat introverts and he addresses this
very clearly through his tone. One example of his spiteful tone is “In our
extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore
desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, and leadership” (Rauch 3). The
first part of his sentence suggests that introversion is not normal because we
do not belong to an introvertist society or even a society with no clear
defining orientation. A reader can make the assumption that Rauch does not
think introversion is desirable because it is not normal by his claim. As noted
at the beginning of the essay, his writing incited an introvert’s rights
movement. I believe that his tone is what brought his story of oppression out
and got people to feel sympathetic towards his argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment