LIMUHAG
JOYAS VOLADORAS REFLECTION
The students were required to read Brian Doyle’s essay titled “Joyas Voladoras,” and were asked to answer these guide questions within five sentences: (1) How does Doyle challenge the traditional expectations of the essays as exemplified by Bacon [“Of Marriage and Single Life”] and Montaigne [“Of Drunkenness”] ? (2) What did you like or not like about this essay? Why?
Brian Doyle is also famous for his book entitled “The Wet Engine: Exploring the Mad Wild Miracle of the Heart.” He had a book reading with the Boston College Magazine Front Row, made available on YouTube through An Evening with Brian Doyle: The Fitful Genius of the Human Heart.
(Note: Bacon And Montaigne are previously discussed works in the class)
DISCUSSION
The three essays are all unique from each other and have different topics that explore the different style of writing of each author. On one hand. Bacon’s style of writing is more of the prescriptive and authoritative style of writing while Montaigne leans more on the conversational style which leaves room for discussion. On the other hand, Doyle’s style of writing is reflective. His essay also involves trivia about animals and scientific facts which then he connects to the cycle of life of every living creature, while Montaigne and Bacon have intertextual references from the book of the renowned philosophers of the past.
If Doyle’s essay is easier to follow due to the choice of words and the way the idea is laid out, Montaigne and Bacon’s has complex words with the deeper and philosophical meaning behind them which needs to be fleshed out to fully understand what the text is meaning to say.
What I like about the text is its first sentence. It automatically caught my attention and tickled my curiosity about what the text is about. I remembered one of our professors said that the first sentence of your writing should capture the attention of the readers in a way that the readers would want to read the whole thing, and this is exactly what the essay did. Another aspect that I liked in the essay is the inclusion of trivia and scientific details which made the essay enjoyable and interesting to read and how these were summed up to the cycle of life at the end of the essay.
Although it is a good read, I sometimes get confused and lost maybe because of how the ideas were structured in a way that it jumps from one idea to another. An example is the part where the author described the number of heart chambers that animals have. Nonetheless, the essay was enjoyable and creative in presenting the cycle of every living thing in this world.
Joyas Voladoras, an essay written by Brian Doyle, has been structured uniquely that it manifests how the author challenges the traditional expectations of the essay. One manifestation is that it does not use the pronoun “I” which, in a way, conceals the personal voice of the speaker and at the same time, hinders the speaker to connect with the readers on a very personal level. The absence of the pronoun “I” also builds an idea in a reader’s mind that the essay could be objective, and certainly, it is. What makes it objective is that most of the time, it emits facts and only in the end does the author speak with opinion and uncertainty through the repetition of the word “perhaps”. Aside from those that were mentioned, the tone of the writer in this essay might be conversational in a way but still, I can sense a distance between the speaker and the reader because as I was reading, I can imagine that the writer is a professor, laying down factual information in front of me while I listen and accept them carefully. Having said that, the essay does not necessarily welcome questions or open discussions from the readers.
Moreover, I have also observed that this written work is not as systematic as compared to Bacon and Montaigne’s works. I would say that this is not systematic because the essay is structured not as a whole, but with divisions. Also, because of that structure, the arguments are not that systematically built up to reinforce the conclusion because the paragraphs do not have transitional devices that would connect each one to create a greater whole. Thus, as a reader, it encourages me to weave ideas together for me to understand what the text really means in totality.
With all honesty, the absence of a proper structure made me lost at times, and I think that’s what I do not like in this essay. As I was reading, it felt like the essay was jumping from one point to another, thus, I also tried to jump along even though we were not following a proper path to begin with. Despite the slight difficulty I experienced in that aspect, still, I was able to enjoy reading the essay, especially when I reached the ending because only in that part was I able to connect with the author personally as the tone and words employed there stimulated my emotions and imagination at the same time.
Brian Doyle’s ‘Joyas Voladoras’ initially deviates from the traditions set by Bacon and Montaigne through its non-argumentative style and its rather free-flowing structure. Doyle doesn’t establish his position on the subject matter’s morality or usage in society, unlike Montaigne’s deterrence of alcohol consumption or Bacon's stance on marriage. Consequently, Doyle’s essay doesn’t directly invite the reader to cast judgment or immediately take action regarding the essay’s subject matter. Doyle also makes use of varying POVs, avoiding the use of the self-centered ‘I’ but still establishing a presence in the text through the use of the collective ‘we’ and ‘our’. But the most striking difference in POV between Doyle’s work and those of his predecessors is his constant use of the second-person ‘you’. In contrast to Bacon’s style of essay writing, Doyle’s works lack rigid structure and resemble a more free-flowing narration of thoughts rather than a ‘fortress’ of logic and philosophy. His statements and thoughts lack Bacon’s signature finality and certainty, employing words indicating doubt and uncertainty such as ‘perhaps’ and ‘can’. Doyle's text also employs heavy use of metaphor, something that I was not able to observe in abundance in Bacon and Montaigne's works. This reliance on the metaphor makes Doyle's essay appear more poetic and 'layered' in meaning.
The aspect of the essay that I really enjoy is the author’s willingness to go into details about the different topics and figures presented in the text. I really enjoyed reading through the opening paragraph about the hummingbird and I liked how the author was able to shift from this topic to an even more detailed discussion about the animal’s heart. This train of thought eventually led to a comparison of different types of hearts, with the author even managing to elevate it to a more personal and emotional level near the essay’s concluding paragraph. The transitions between these different talking points were done in a very ‘free’ and almost casual manner, which can potentially be viewed as a detrimental element to a hypercritical eye, but fortunately, I don’t think that this is the case. In fact, I was able to latch on to the thoughts and sentiments that were unveiled as I progressed in my reading of the essay.
Allito
The first thing I noticed with how Doyle challenges the traditional expectations of the essays is that it didn’t follow the conventional structure; the introduction, body, and conclusion. The essay was splitted into sections and discussed in vivid details. Also, the opening paragraph didn’t immediately present the main idea of the essay. But Doyle discussed and presented information based on scientific evidence while gradually revealing to the readers what the essay was all about. While Bacon and Montaigne related their personal accounts and were somehow being didactic in their essays, Doyle was the opposite. He was rather suggestive and objective in presenting ideas.
I liked how the essay is descriptive while being poetic throughout the entire essay. The use of metaphors was evident, which made it more engaging to read. I found it interesting when he compared and contrast love to the hummingbird, tortoise, blue-whale and even small insects while supporting it with factual information. I also liked how the idea of the essay was gradually revealed, making me read further.
Probably the most striking difference between Doyle’s and the traditional essays of Bacon and Montaigne is its introduction: how the opening image of a hummingbird's heart seemed too scientific to be tied in the end with the frailty of human emotions, and, thus, of human hearts. What is more, the speaker in the essay Joyas Voladoras guides the readers not as conspicuously as Montaigne’s yet not as obscure as Bacon as well. Doyle employs, from time to time, the collective we and even the direct appeal to the audience using the you, yet rare was the pronoun I found in the essay. Unlike Bacon and Montaigne, however, Doyle’s points were ambiguous, even mysterious as it starts with a rather technical description of the tiniest hearts, to the house-like chambers of whales, and finally to that of a human. It is only in the last section how Doyle wrapped his points and concluded his arguments of the different functions, as well as sizes of our hearts that are all the same frail and alone.
As I finished the essay, I have not found unlikeable qualities of it, although, I could only wish for Doyle to expand the last sections where he related the anatomies of the tiniest and largest hearts to a human's. However, rereading it, I think it serves the purpose how short those sections are as they leave heavier impressions to the readers. One of the things I like in the essay, however, is the prose: Doyle is a master poet in creating such supple prose that complements the rather scientific subjects of animal hearts. Thus, it is not all that surprising how the essay ended with a wistful, even nostalgic, theme. His prose perhaps, if I may reach, carried the essay’s intention to not only recall the basic biological details of animal hearts but to appeal to its readers the mostly overlooked truth, “We all churn inside”, as he plays with both technical and poetic languages.
Upon reading Doyle's essay, one may deem it unfit to be called an essay if one puts the rigid structure of academic essays the criteria of what they think an essay should be. However, I, who is also one of those people before, know better now because of my exposure to the examples of Bacon and Montaigne. So when I read Doyle's essay, I was surprised (in a good way). Unlike the traditional essays, he doesn't bring attention to himself but rather, to the progression of the subject's development. In fact, one's attention is diverted to the storytelling instead. As far as I remember, there is no "I" that is used and if there is, the attention to the speaker is minimal because again, we are focused on the subject. In traditional essays as in the examples of Bacon and Montaigne, we hear them and we notice them. They occasionally bring themselves to the spotlight by using the "I" and inserting their own personal accounts. In Doyle's, it's all about the heart. Additionally, Bacon's and Montaigne's essays ensure their subject are of their personal concern and make sure that those are known. In Doyle's, we are unsure. Bacon and Montaigne end their essay in a thought-provoking manner that urges reader to seek question or answers using their mind. In Doyle's, his is the heart, probably the soul, too. And Bacon's, as well as Montaigne's, ensure the subject is clear to the reader and the progression to a possible conclusion. In Doyle's, we aren't too sure. But we know he said something, we just had too look deeper. Regardless of the differences, Doyle's essay is no lesser than the others.
My only reaction while I was reading Doyle's essay was awe. What's not to like about it? Although I was a little confused at first because I was not sure about what he was talking about and if the whole text was really an essay, I was later captured by the storytelling and the voice and just practically everything. As a prosaist, I love his skill in storytelling and I can't stress this enough. I aspire to have this skill. Perhaps, if all essays are and can be written in this way, maybe I would read and write more of them. I also love how he could capture a whole emotion, a whole moment, a whole concept, with just a few words. He doesn't dictate what we should think, he's just merely imparting his own wisdom and letting us run wild from it. Overall, I don't think I could find any flaws if there's any.
Doyle’s Joyas Voladoras challenged the conventions Bacon and Montaigne have created in their essays by trusting the readers enough to understand the subject of the essay without explicitly saying so. I also noticed that unlike the two, Doyle was enumerating varied objects to focus on each paragraph that seamlessly led the readers’ attention to the implied point of the essay. It was like snowballing the idea to solidity by talking initially about the hummingbird to hearts of different species until finally telling what hearts endure in a lifetime. The part I liked most about it was that it was up to the readers what to make out of it; to take what resonates. More so, I also noticed that Doyle switches point of views from third person (they) to second person (you) to finally the first person collective (we) which gradually developed with the growth of the reader-writer relationship throughout the essay. Lastly, the essay does not shy away from figurative language which to me, makes the essay poetic.
Doyle's style of writing an essay obviously strains against the poetic genre. He uses something organic and science as an example to elaborate his writing and signify his thoughts. Through science, in his essay, he cited and regarded animals such as whales and hummingbirds as his image or symbol of his reflection of life or, should I say, a particular aspect of life. Bacon and Montaigne's essays, I think, only demand its readers to look into the apparent subject, given that their way of presenting and exploring open-endedness and different ideas is through life experiences such as societal positions and skepticism (Montaigne), which is only focusing on the surface subject. This kind of writing, I think, has been challenged by Doyle in a way that the readers must also look for its more profound matter/subject. The open-endedness and different possibilities he is trying to mention are elaborated through scientific and metaphoric images. I really like this notion because it gives a clearer and broader picture of what the author is trying to say. His examples of whales and hummingbirds' hearts became an avenue to provoke the readers' emotions. It demands the readers to also sincerely engage themselves throughout the essay and try to see, examine, and relate what these animals' hearts have to do with human emotions or our entire lives.
Also, when it comes to the author's voice, though it is poetic (which is quite different from traditional expectations of the essay), it still has conciseness that suggests concrete ideas towards its readers. Though the author also did not use the pronoun "I," like Montaigne and Bacon, it still managed to achieve a subjective and opinionated sense of voice because he had this suggestive tone instead of being/trying to be assertive.
"Joyas Voladoras" started with an emphasis on hummingbirds. The first line itself said, consider the hummingbird for a long moment. There was also the repetition of information regarding the hummingbird's heart. Hence, I actually thought that the whole essay was centralized around the hummingbird. I was wrong. The highlight, started from the hummingbird's life cycle, shifted to the functions of the heart. He inserted other creatures too, not limiting the essay to hummingbirds. The essay was also divided into parts, with each of them discussing different ideas. Through all these, Doyle daringly challenged the traditional form of an essay. He built an idea, expanded it, but didn't restrict himself with it. From the first idea, he explored another idea, then another, until he arrived at a conclusion that a reader wouldn't expect. I also noticed that Doyle's presence or voice wasn't emphasized, compared to Montaigne's.
Personally, I wouldn't expect that an essay about the cycles in a hummingbird's life would end in a sentimental thought.
I was honestly surprised with this sentence: Hummingbirds, like all flying birds but more so, have incredible enormous immense
ferocious metabolisms. Adjectives were stacked up in this sentence, but still made sense. I never thought this would be accepted in the conventions of essay (and grammar). For me, this sentence and its style was compelling, thus I liked it. It's also worth mentioning how Doyle associated creativity, sensitivity, and science which were manifested through his words; he sprinkled poetry on the elements of science.
For what I didn't like, or perhaps something that didn't amaze me despite its attempt to be artistic, was the overload of details picturing the physique/characteristics of the hummingbirds; the part bearded helmet-crests and booted racket-tails, violet-tailed sylphs and violet-capped woodnymphs, crimson topazes and purple-crowned fairies... These were perceptive details, yes, however it bothered me that the writer might've overdone it. Regardless of the imaginative imageries that the writer applied, it didn't have a striking effect anymore. For me, that part was a surplus of details.
Brian Doyle challenged the traditional expectations of the essay as exemplified by Bacon and Montaigne through incorporating the qualities of the two essays in making his presence as the author known. In his essay, he did not use the pronoun "I" but rather used the pronouns "our," "we," and "you" instead. Doyle's use of the second point of view initiates discourse with the reader –a conversation and not an argument hence, giving enough room for self-analysis. While Bacon and Montaigne's essay can appear as argumentative, persuasive, and lost in their own thoughts and convictions, this is not the case for Doyle. Instead, he uses another element, a tool, which in this case are the animals, to express and reflect on his own thoughts with regards to the heart. His essay is descriptive, informative, and kind of story-like that reading it feels more about being there with him, observing the creatures he talks about, listening to him talking about them, and reflecting at the same time than focusing on trying how to venture and follow how he as an author thinks (which I believe is the case in Montaigne's essay). He is more like sharing his point than making a point. This reminds me of our lesson, The Essay Lecture, on how to make essays creative. I observed that he used the elements of plot structure and scenes. Joyas Valodras also utilized the use of "diepgang" as it has the "apparent subject": the heart as an organ and a "deeper subject," which is the heart as feelings and emotions. It also does not end with a solid thought and leaves room for the readers to reflect on their own.
What I like about the essay “Joyas Valodras” is how it was written in a way that reading it was not taxing. The author basically talked about science and the anatomy of hearts; however, the essay did not appear as boring or too informative as the language, and the way this information was conveyed was told in a story-like manner with imageries that took us readers with the author as if we were spectators and scientists observing the hearts of these species and how they live their life while also reflecting our own. The only thing that concerned me was how the essay is divided into sections. While it helps with the organization of the points, it was rather confusing as the beginning of each section introduces a new idea that is not connected to the last sentence of the prior paragraph.
Compared to Montaigne and Bacon’s essay, “Joyas Voladoras,” was light and somewhat easy to read, and it was not just because it was a short essay. The author, Doyle, was as assertive as Montaigne and Bacon in their essays. But Doyle was also somewhat suggestive in presenting his ideas that it almost sounded gentle. This was apparent in his use of the word, “consider” and the phrase, “consider for a moment,” which suggested that the author was not dictating the audience on what to do and not requiring the audience of their attention. This “gentleness” may have also been because of the poetic devices which were present in the essay. Throughout the essay, the repetition of words and phrases was present, which provided emphasis to the author’s points and gave the essay rhythm and a certain musical quality. Another interesting observation was how the subject matter affected how the essay was presented. Bacon and Montaigne wrote about the greatness of man, so they used strong tones and strong claims in their essays, “Of Marriage and Single Life” and “Of Drunkenness,” while Doyle wrote about nature and focused on its delicateness and greatness but still used the image of humans to emphasize on how great and frail nature is. These observations were also the qualities I liked in Doyle’s essay. The subject matter, the poetic qualities, the tone, and how concise it was made the essay interesting and easy to read.
I think Doyle challenges the traditional expectations of the essay exemplified by Bacon and Montaigne through his eccentric way of writing his essay. Unlike Bacon and Montaigne’s essay, Doyle more informal in structure and has creative liberty on his essay like in the fourth stanza, there’s this line “waaaaay bigger than your car which show that his essay is leaning to informal way of writing. Also his essay is always using big, often exaggerated, words like “…incredible enormous immense ferocious metabolism”. Also Doyle seems to use facts other than opinion backed with anecdotes, like Montaigne does or Bacon.
I like how creative the essay was, it its very interesting to read because of the words used in the essay and how Doyle described things like the heart, animals, and the bird. I also like the tone of the author which almost sounds like an animal docu-series narrator in NatGeoWild. The construction of the text is superfluous sometimes it seems like a drunken uncle was the one talking in the text. Though, I don’t technically the superfluous aspect of it as much because even if it mildly annoyed me it makes sense because it seems like an actual person talking to you that you thought does not make sense but is, it adds to the engagement and enjoyment of the essay.
I think that the main difference of the 3 essays is the way the “main idea” was presented. The first two essays had initially given the main idea of their paper, allowing the readers to have a concrete idea on what was going to be discussed by the author. Doyle’s essay had done the exact opposite by not giving a clear idea on what the essay was trying to discuss. Doyle’s essay allowed the reader to build upon each metaphor to have a clear idea of what the essay was trying to say.
The difference of the three essays could be likened to drawing a triangle on paper. The first two essays started with the very specific point at the top and they ended drawing a line from this—widening the base and building the foundation. We (the readers) already know what it was going to be about, we just had to find out where it was going to end, and thus find out the foundation of the idea from top to bottom. Doyle’s essay started from the bottom, in which the foundation was first laid out to us. Each section became more specific, narrowing the concept until it reached the “point” of the essay. Thus, we had the chance to somehow build the conclusion with the author from bottom up.
I liked how Doyle’s essay precisely because of the difference that it holds from the two essays. I started reading the essay with no clue of what it was going to say—there was no hint of anything. Even a title that would most likely tell me what the piece of text would talk about was kept from me. At first, I found this a little jarring because I wasn’t used to it and thus I thought that I was going to absolutely hate it. However, as I read through the essay (and later reread), I found that it was fulfilling to reach the end of the paper because I felt like I somehow saw the process of building the idea that was presented. It made me feel like I worked more than I would have to understand what the text was trying to say in comparison to the other two works.
Doyle challenges the traditional expectations of the essay by combining Bacon and Montaigne’s concept of how the essay should be, and by doing so, Doyle breaks and reinvents these conventions made by the two and merges them into a singular literary work. If we are to look closely as to how this essay by Doyle is structured, we can see that this can easily be broken into segments: the hummingbird, the whale, the human heart. It presents irrefutable facts that are the foundation of the argument which the essay tries to make as it progresses and reaches the end part of the text. But while this one aspect of the essay is true, the essay also left enough room for introspection and reflection. While the essay presents facts, in the same vein, it explores and attempts to make meaning out of it in a human context. Nothing is said with finality as the text ended, only an exploration on the becoming of the human heart in a lifetime.
What I liked about the essay was how it approached the topic. The subject could have easily been less interesting if it was just about the information of the heart, and the way the hummingbird and the whale lived. But it was not. The essay was able to use the many facts about these creatures, their hearts and life, to create insights and playful images that are easy to read and also meaningful. This was also used to create a more profound exploration of the human experience in the essay’s conclusion. And if there was anything I did not like about it, it would be the cuts between the paragraphs that somehow felt like the ideas weren’t fluid. The sudden shifts of the main ideas in each paragraph made them slightly disconnected and it was a little jarring for me.
Joyas Voladoras challenges the traditional expectations of the essay by deviating from the traditional stucture. The essay is not arranged to form an introduction, body, and conclusion. Instead, it has multiple sections that center on a single idea: the heart. Heart of a hummingbird, a blue whale, a human, and finally the metaphorical heart that relates to emotions. This core subject is used throughout the essay to draw comparisons about human life but in a subtle way, unlike Bacon and Montaigne who cited different personalities to prove their points. There is no “I” but it addresses the audience. It speaks in as-a- matter-of-fact manner that reads like an encyclopedia or like a narration from a nature documentary that describes what is being observed. Ultimately, the essay does not reach a conclusion or an epiphanic moment from all the things discussed that tie the whole thing together. Instead, it opens on a new subject and is left open-ended.
What I like about the essay is its poetic language and the vivid descriptions which made the scientific facts more interesting than they already are. I also like how it follows a central idea but touches on different topics without seeming recursive and confusing. Moreover, the choice of words feels warm instead of distant even when the subject matters are not exactly personal experiences the author had. Despite using hard facts, the essay does not feel imposing or forces a lesson to the audience.
The only thing I dislike – not really a dislike but something I’m not used to – is the unpredictability of the essay. As I was reading, I was not sure where it is going to take me so I braced myself for any sudden shifts or jumpscares the way they do in horror movies when you are lured into a false sense of security. Fortunately, I only found pleasant surprises instead. I enjoy reading unpredictable works such as with a novel or even with a non-fiction book but unlike this essay, I sort of have a clue what’s going to happen based on the blurb or the cover. Even traditional essays have a thesis statement to guide the reader. But reading an essay like Joyas Valdoras is like navigating an unfamiliar place alone; a daunting but also an exciting experience.
When the essay opened up with the focus on hummingbirds, I thought that idea that it would try to say must be related to them. A lot of essays and articles would often open up to this seemingly innocuous trivia as a way to make the points tangible and easy to relate to. Because of this, we can say that the essay had seemingly tried to diverge itself from the didactic structure from Bacon and Montaigne's conversational structure as Doyle tries to create some sort of a synthesis between the two to write the essay. I thought about this because the essay, in essence, is willing to structure itself, like a fortress, as it uses scientific facts about animal hearts. He uses this fact as he tries to compare their similarities and differences to make a reflection about life, human life. However, despite this seemingly rigid structure, the essay ended with a conversation - a rather personal one - in which it relays specific details that connects the biology of the heart and how we emphatically and symbolically see the heart.
I like how the essay relays its message like an eye-opener. I like how it does this by starting first from hummingbirds and their eternal quest for survival, then the scope goes wider as the essay turns to blue whales, which is meant to contrast the hummingbirds. These two objective facts had essentially tempered the 'heart' solid as the central object, as the essay turns to impart its philosophy about living and/or surviving. At first, I thought that the sudden turn of attention of the essay was a bit off. I thought that this could be just like Wampole's observation of modern essay, but after I finished the whole essay, I felt that there is significance in telling the readers first about the hummingbirds and blue whales to tell about the lives of human beings.
What I also like about this essay is that it is a testament that the genre doesn't have to conform to any structure to make a point. I could see myself writing essays from Bacon's structure if I wanted to make a firm statement, or I could use Montaigne's if I feel that I wanted to divulge my inner thoughts. But this essay also tells us that there is a significant level of freedom in writing essays as long as we made our thoughts clear.
The essay “Joyas Voladoras” challenges the notion of the traditional essay presented by Francis Bacon and Michel de Montaigne. The traditional expectations of an essay were borne by these writers, presenting it as an attempt to shed light on a subject especially relating to personal accounts of the writers. However, Bacon’s essay is assertive while Montaigne subverted it to evoke personal judgment and reaction from the reader. In connection to Doyle’s essay, “Joyas Voladoras” speaks about a universal topic - love symbolized in the image of hearts of different species. He also subverts the traditional tenet of an essay by including scientifically verified facts about these creatures, thus making it informative, unlike the previous writers who solely rely on personal accounts and/or observations. Moreover, I like how the essay uses facts in the essay and relates it to his personal experiences or observation as a human and writer himself. I think using this kind of delivery gives the readers an assurance towards the author on what they are trying to say. And by using two opposing poles – the objective science and the subjectivity of the author – it creates a symbiotic relationship that connects them, transcending meaning beyond what our mind is capable of.
Doyle’s “Joyas Voladoras” follows a reflective approach using various facts about the anatomy and nature of animals such as the hummingbird and the whale. Unlike Montaigne’s conversational way of writing that invites the readers to look closely to the text, Doyle used the interesting details about these animals to capture the interest of the readers and to express his thoughts. The voice in his essay was objective yet, not to the point of omniscience unlike that of Bacon’s. Moreover, the structure of Doyle’s essay was far from that of Bacon and Montaigne. In “Joyas Voladoras,” the author used lines to separate the paragraphs of this essay into sections. This is different from the way Bacon and Montaigne wrote their essays because those essays were not sectioned the way Doyle’s was. Despite the sectioning of the essay, the flow of Doyle’s essay was also easy to follow, perhaps, because the language was simpler and has a “matter-of-fact” tone compared to that of Bacon and Montaigne whose essays were littered with the heavily opinionated voice. Furthermore, the essays of Bacon and Montaigne attempted to argue a point and both has cited references from events and people to demonstrate their ideas. Doyle, in his essay, was simply talking about the heart, and although he used animals to illustrate his thoughts on the subject, it wasn’t in a way that appears to be unruly or imposing. The subjectivity and objectivity of the voice as the essay progressed was also balanced.
I personally like the way Doyle started the essay by gently nudging the reader to the subject that he wanted to talk about. I like how this subject or topic was slowly unpacked by putting it side-by-side with the nature of hummingbirds and whales. I like how insightful it was despite the “matter-of-fact” tone at the first few paragraphs of the essay. I also found pleasure in the simplicity of the language and the flow of the essay. I like how even with the page or line breaks that divided the paragraphs; the said paragraphs were still connected naturally. I like how the author was able to present his thoughts without fully revealing everything in the essay. I also like the shift in the voice from being informative to contemplative as it helped establish the writer’s presence in the essay.
Photo Reference by Emma Li