Both of these essays include sensitive narrative accounts. To what extent do these essays reflect the authors’ ethical considerations of storytelling?
In both essays, there definitely are sensitive issues which is addressed to a personal narrative from the lens of the author. In “Signing Their Lives Away”, the author starts off with a personal aspect of the story by talking about a first hand experience of a 21-year old male being found by his friends with a gruesome scene of a trail of vomit on the floor and needles and baggies in his pocket — a clear sign of overdose. In this way, the authors’ ethical considerations of story telling is reflected by making us think introspectively: this scene could have happened to any of our friends. Then, the story zooms out onto the overarching situation which is the opioid epidemic in the suburbs of Philadelphia. This his a broad perspective of the whole issue and is an effective way in engaging us completely and providing a window into a very sensitive issue without overstepping boundaries. “The Cross We Have To Bear” follows the same story telling structure as “Signing Their Lives Away” but addresses a different topic that is also very sensitive: sexual abuse and the cover-up of said abuse that has existed in churches. In this day and age, it is so easy to generalise sensitive topics and overlook them but with the author’s effective use of merging narrative with research aspects, the ethical considerations is carefully managed helping elucidate on the sensitive matters on a deeper and broader level which allows us, the audience, the be able to relate to them better.
How does each essay take a very large, complex topic and make it manageable for a relatively short research paper? Further, how does each writer attempt to capture the interest of a Fresh Writing audience?
Both essays to a great job of condensing a large amount of information about a complex topic into a relatively short and easy-to-understand research paper. One of the ways both authors did so effectively was to give short and succinct factual information without overloading the audience. It is clear the prior research has been done before the writing of both essays, but the ability for the author to sieve our what is useful (such as the exponential growth of opioid abuse between 1990 and 2017 as mentioned in “Signing Their Lives Away”) is key in condensing information and making a complex topic into a relatively short research paper. Furthermore, the authors both use personal narratives as a rhetorical tool to help draw a closer link between the audience and the research topic. In “The Cross We Have To Bear”, the author vividly describes his love for Notre Dame and being a Notre Dame before talking about the abject horror when he founds out that Notre Dame had been tainted by the stain of the sexual abuse scandal. As a Notre Dame student myself (and I’m very sure a large majority of the audience are too), this hits close to home and I am able to better understand the research topic through the paper he wrote much better through being able to imagine myself in the author’s shoes. The rhetorical tool of personal not only helps to condense useful information into some understandable and digestible, it captures the interest of a Fresh Writing audience through relating their personal experiences with facts. This is invokes thought provoking arguments among the audience and effectively captures their interest on the subject matter. Furthermore, the authors use vivid imagery when they describe their experiences with the sensitive topic they are talking about which paints a better picture in the audiences’ mind and allows them to be more compelled and emotionally moved by the stories.
Both essays alternate between first-person narrative and third-person analysis of research sources. How do these two kinds of writing work together? How does the author transition between them?
The alternation between first-person narrative and third-person analysis works well together to cover all the parts of a research essay. First-person narratives are often primary sources giving the audience a more “personal” connection while also giving the essay a perspective from the view of somewhat in the heat of it all (very useful when talking about a sensitive or obscure issue where not many people can relate). Third-person analysis with the use of sources from scholarly articles give a more credible view of the research topic and builds on an either and audiences’ pre-existing knowledge or gives them new insight on the topic. In “Signing Their Lives Away”, the author switches back to first-person narrative after describing the macro overview of the opioid abuse. He starts off the paragraph with a story about arriving at a home, a nice Colonial that looks strikingly similar to his own house, which is only about 5 minutes away. He enters to find a perfectly cleaned living room, and note the smell of Italian food flowing from the kitchen. Then he switches back to third-person analysis by describing the opioid abuse trend which targets young individuals. The mesh of both essay writing styles allow the author to drive home the point that opioid abuse can happen to anyone and everyone and should not be something to be overlooked. It also provide us with new insight on opioid abuse affecting someone you would least expect. In the same vein, “The Cross We Have To Bear” speaks about the authors initial interpretation of sexual abuse and how it is easy to believe that all of this abuse is far away and is only with sleazy priests. He counters this initial interpretation by talking about his surprise when he found out there had been abusive priests at Notre Dame. This is very effective in introducing a new angle in the author’s research topic and would make the essay flow much easier when he eventually switches back to third-person analysis about sexual abuse among Catholic priests.
Munyen's Writing Journey 