Blog # #

The two essays to start are both brilliant and I enjoyed them greatly. They both share similar qualities, while making themselves unique with differences. Both are written from the first person point of view and this way you can become involved with the essay by feeling what the writer was thinking during the segment. In Orwell you could feel how it was like to be a "ill-educated" minority in Burma. How nobody likes you and the ironic part is, it's his job to protect all those whom hate him. Also I liked how you were in his head as during his internal debate of whether he should shoot or not. Because of the way it is written and how Orwell describes his status of the town, I got the feeling though he justified the shooting because it was the right thing to do, that he kind of felt a little pressure because everyone was watching. Besides doing what was right he also took in probably what would have happened if he didn't shoot what the people what have done to him. Montainge from what I understood from the reading is not so much talking about himself, death and history. Death wasn't looked at by him as a way to judge ones life.

The differences of the two essays are for one Orwell's work is a storyline that follows a path from beginining to ending. Montainge used examples of others work to comprise his own. He is though using the technique we saw in Lott by writing in the relationship of oneself to the subject manner. I got the idea that Montaigne's essay was about his own take on death and what he thinks it is all about. The tone of both overall works are different, while reading you get taken to a different place. Also the writers wording was quite different as well.