When writing an English essay, there’s a multitude of different ways to go about the content in the paper, as well as the actual structure of the text. Since there’s no absolute “correct” way to write an essay of choice, grasping the reader’s attention plays a huge role in how successful the piece of writing may turn out to be. Gopnik and Kingsolver both wrote two incredible, very different essays “Dog Story” and “Making Peace,” respectively, with striking features, but the content, structure, and meaning contained both many similarities and differences that made them work as complete, successful writings.
Gopnik and Kingsolver both used many features in their writing’s, but the one that stuck out the most was comparisons by the use of metaphors and similes used by both, however, more so by Gopnik. Gopnik tied many of his comparisons within the text, making them harder to identify, but still making vivid images, while Kingsolver provided a few comparisons, using less metaphors and vivid images. The most vivid simile provided by Kingsolver appeared towards the end of the text describing thoughts on human societies, comparing to animal relations.
More features used in both essays included the audience, complexity of the text, as well as the precision in each written essay. Gopnik and Kingsolver both wrote in a conversational, informal manner, as any audience could appreciate the particular animal essays. While both texts contained complexity, Kingsolver’s essay seemed much more complex, with many more ideas, rather than just stories, flashbacks, and evidence of evolution. The feature of precision must be very important, as it will make a huge effect on whether or not the information is reliable or not in the reader’s mind. Both essays contained great precision, as they backed up any idea or theory with evidence from particular scientists, or another reliable source.
The features used by both authors allowed the story to elevate into a well-rounded, reliable, and visual essay. Each feature used actually enhanced the essays in different manners, while the important feature in both was that which maintained reliability. Interestingly, Gopnik and Kingsolver provided a huge difference in content, when Gopnik focused on a particular relationship with a dog, or domesticated animal, while Kingsolver focused on a relationship with wild animals. Through the great difference, evidence was provided that relationships do actually follow the same trend in a few ways, while they also differ. The features added together in a different manner created structure by which the author chose to create the story.
Although features in an essay are important, the structure of an essay must be plausible as well. When terms of structure arise, both stories by Gopnik and Kingsolver contained similarities, with a few differences between the two. The main similarity of both essays was the detailed incorporation of stories. Gopnik grabbed the reader’s attention right away, providing a flashback of him and his wife giving in, buying their daughter her very first puppy, with reluctance. He then went to discuss the thoughts he had before and after buying the puppy, as well as many of the adventures the family underwent during a time with huge adjustment. After many adventures, Gopnik broke down into Darwinism, biological evidence, and evolution theories about human nature, dogs specifically. While Gopnik started by grabbing the reader’s attention, Kingsolver began with a story evolving into the realization of animal territorial diversity when compared to humans. After the realization, Kingsolver provided evidence to many different evolution beliefs, and reasons as to why animals perform the way they do. Structurally, Kingsolver seemed to remain on the same topic as the original problem, whereas, Gopnik strays from the original story, creating ideas of dog evolution. Kingsolver structurally arranged the paper straight forward, to the point, while Gopnik deterred from the original thoughts many times, but still appropriately resolved all ideas and thoughts.
In conclusion, the many different features that both writers used in their papers developed insightful, clear, and meaningful essays. The main similarity, comparisons made in both essays, by use of metaphors and similes created vivid images, as well as understanding, of the exact message the writer was trying to pursue. Although both writers provided the essays with comparisons, the setup, or structure of each essay was of utmost difference.