Comparing Foreshadowing in Train from Rhodesia and Dead Mens Path Essa

Foreshadowing and Alliteration in Train from Rhodesia and Dead Men's Path Authors often use literary devices to appeal to their audience without their awareness. By doing so, certain parts of a story or book will seem more important, in a very private way. They won't scream for attention, but they will stick, for they are catchy. Sometimes, authors are not aware that they are using a device to persuade their audience, it occurs naturally. Common literary devices and elements are metaphors, similes, alliteration, perhaps even couplet rhyming. Though foreshadowing is not necessary a literary device, it is often an element that many authors use in their work as well. Foreshadowing through adjectives and alliteration are two devices used in both "The Train from Rhodesia" by Nadine Gordimer and "Dead Men's Path" by Chinua Achebe. "The Train from Rhodesia" by Nadine Gordimer shows foreshadowing elements through it's adjectives and other important words. It alludes to the end mood of the story through adjectives used throughout. At the end of "The Train from Rhodesia", there is an overwhelming feeling of emptiness, perhaps even a persistent sadness. Throughout the story, many of the adjectives point to that. The words "pale" and "dead" in the sentence, "...on either side of a uniform railway vase with it's pale dead flower." (p. 909) and even the word "uniform" points to the emptiness which will prevail toward the end of the story. "Empty" may seem like a word to describe "the empty sand." (p. 910) but it also points to the emotion of the girl at the end. Words that show uncertainty, basted in melancholy occur all over the book, like "waiting", "wandered", "faint", "da... ...more vibrant than a fulfilled smile, and the way a school should be run contains power within the statement. There is no doubt that Achebe did not use alliteration gratuitously, but to show the reader which elements of his story he feels are the most powerful-to serve a purpose. "The Train from Rhodesia" by Nadine Gordimer and "Dead Men's Path" by Chinua Achebe both employed foreshadowing through adjectives and alliteration in their stories. The use of these devices was not to be charming, or cute, but to instill purpose and meaning to their stories. A story without purpose is simply meaningless drivel, and a story with a purpose that cannot be remembered because of a lack of devices is also equally as meaningless. The devices used in both stories illustrate the author's point as concisely as possible. Both stories have maintained their purpose.

In the Early Nineteenth Century Americans Sought

As time passed the rapidly changing society in the nineteenth century, in 1820 the north and south began to have serious conflicting problems that were proved unfixable by compromise. During this time, the north underwent major social, economic, and industrial changes known as the Antebellum Period. While the south generally clung to king cotton and slavery and thus remained essentially the same. This arose a manifold of controversies with how issues such as tariffs, slavery, and land should be handled.Both the Union and the Confederacy tried to create compromises to resolve these problems, yet both sides were never completely satisfied no matter how hard they tried. This made it very close to impossible for them to completely put their differences at ease. As the north began to grow more industrially, the south stuck to their farms that were mainly maintained by slaves. This brought up a difficult dispute with the matter of how tariffs should be handled.Since the north became indust rial, it was more efficient of them to impose tariffs on the country to better their economy. Because instead of the people of the north getting better deals purchasing goods from Europe, the higher tariffs made it harder and cost them more to do business with Europe, as result they purchased goods from local businesses. This proved to be a major problem for the south because the high tariffs levels threatened their cotton exports and goods imports from their main buyers and sellers, the Europeans.This angered the south because the tariffs favored the North by protecting them from foreign competition such as with the Tariff of Abominations, so called by the south, in 1828. The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods from U. S. manufacturers, mainly in the North, at a higher price, while southern states also faced a reduced income from sales of raw materials. But then the tariff of 1832 was addressed by Andrew Jackson to further lower the tariffs, but the south was still no t satisfied with this compromise and this lead to the nullification controversy.As a result of the threat of nullification, Henry Clay said it was impracticable for South Carolina to nullify and not smart to secede (Doc A). So he and John C. Calhoun proposed the Compromise Tariff of 1833 to further lower the rates gradually which still didn’t prove to achieve anything do to the fact of the Black Tariff of 1842 where tariffs were nearly doubled. Thus, ruling out compromise as a solution to their differences on the matter of tariffs. The economy of the north and south were so different the way they ran their usiness, it did not agree. One problem for the south is that the north wanted for them to free slaves or at least the to stop the expansion of it. Some of the north felt that it was morally unjust and that it went against the declaration of independence which stated â€Å"All men are created equal â€Å". But others like the Free-Soil Party viewed it as economically ineff icient and an obsolete institution. If slaves were emancipated their labor force and profit would disappear.And in the Anti-Slavery Society, they call slave holders â€Å"man stealers† and say that slavery is contrary to God’s law, which makes laws endorsing slavery invalid (Doc. B). The south demanded that all bills abolishing slavery be disregarded (Doc. C). The south saw the north barbaric for the work conditions and low wages their textile laborers were put through (Doc. F). The north and south had proposed many compromises to resolve this problem; but this couldn’t happen because the South’s profit came from their cotton exportation which was in the need of slaves.The North had made compromises even to stop the expansion of slavery such as the Missouri Compromise from 1819 to 1821, but it was viewed by some people such as Jefferson as a so called â€Å"fireball in the night† and was ruled by Supreme Court that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in territories, as part of the decision in the Dred Scott case. Resulting again in another futile attempt to solve their differences through the method of compromise. The coexistence of a slave owning south with an increasingly anti-slavery north made conflict likely.It was formidable to decide whether such states like the ones gained from the Mexican War should be slavery or anti-slavery, which either way would disrupt the balance between the slave and antislavery states. This divided the Union and Confederacy even further. Later on, President Lincoln sought not to propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had in his 1858 House Divided speech, expressed a desire to â€Å"arrest the further spread of it â€Å"(Doc. G).Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories. All of the organized territories were likely to become free soil states which increased the southern movement toward secession. Both north and south assumed that if slavery could not expand it would become nonexistent. Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to anti-slavery forces, and northern feared that the slave power already controlled the government; these thoughts brought the sectional disagreements.The morality of slavery, the scope of democracy, and the economic merits of free labor versus slave plantations caused the Whig and know nothing parties to collapse and the free soil party to arrive, ruining the resolve of compromise. By the year 1860, there seemed to be no way that compromise could not possibly accomplish to peace among the south and the north. The north did not see how slavery could benefit anyone any longer, and the south felt the conditions that industrialization emerged were unacceptable and unlivable.As Politics further divided them, secession or war seemed to be inevitable and soon to come. This ended up creating the Civil War in 1861, an attempt of th e south to break away from the north to keep their beliefs and slavery alive. Unfortunately, this led them to their demise of surrender and forced them to form the United States of America with the north. Therefore, gradually ending slavery and all of contentions between the north and the south, and proving that compromises were a useless attempt of fulfilling this task.

50 Amazing Asian Inventions