If these two narrator’s sat down to have a discussion over
brunch I would believe that they will have similar views about life and how
they could possibly work together to help guide the world in a much more humble
way. Each one seems to have faced an experience in their lives that made them
much wiser. They both are trying to test the individuals the interacted with to
live life as it comes and learn from it no matter how hard it may get. I
believe that these two would teach others to seek the positive e things that
life has to offer and if they are faced either negativity to embrace it and
learn from it. In the articles, the narrator’s don’t intend to show off what
they did in their life to be better, instead explain that without struggle they
would have not progressed and become the people that they now are. They don’t want
attention but they are well respected by those who are around them. Their experiences
are what any of us face and looking at the bright side of them is what helps
the individual succeed in this hectic world. They do not try to tell you how to
live your life, instead how to look at it and embrace it.
I completely agree with you. The two would get along since both of them are pushing the same overall idea, but just do it in different ways. I do not know if they would agree the word “humble” would completely describe their motive. A better word may have simply been positive. This does explain each point and lets the reader know that if they think more “positive” in their everyday life, the world might just be a brighter place. Would you say that the audience has a way of pulling a different motive out of each speech? For example, if Morrison gave her speech to the graduates and Wallace gave his speech to the Nobel audience.
ReplyDelete