Literary Devices Essay Example for Free

Literary Devices EssayWhile attending my course on War and Literature, and listening to the conversation, I rear myself struck by an intellectual doubtfulness presented by an an early(a)(prenominal) student. This student asked, When does problem become fabrication? Immediately after fightds I wrote the solution, A dear fight is a warfare that teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them. At first I didnt know if I had truly responded to the question. I analyse both the question and response c befully through the literary devices and found myself satisfied with the responses standing. When analyzing the response I first had to return to the question. When does paradox become hypocrisy? Referring to this question I had to ask if my response held a paradox. A good war is a war that teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them. Considering that a paradox is a financial statement that seems self-contradictory, and that a good war is the introduction to the response, suggested that a good war is a paradox. However, why is it that a good war is a paradox? War can best be defined as active hostility. Good can to a fault be best defined as being well be perplexd. Considering these definitions and the response, a good war would certainly be a paradox because active hostility is contradictory to being well be weard. However, virtually would assume that a good war was the responses paradox, and to assume early(a)wise would be insulting to psyches intellect.So then one has to ask how it is so commonly understood that a good war is a paradox? To conclude this question, one must consider that most of everyone was raised with the developmental agreement of good and bad. Most of everyone also would commonly agree that war is not good. So why do people still go, and why do we not learn from its mistakes without just aboutone having to live with them? From statistics taken in the year two thousand fourteen, seven percent of Americas soc iety is a veteran, and in that year there were near trio hundred eighteen million citizens. That means that over twenty two million American citizens are veterans of foreign war. So how is it that we can convince over seven percent of our citizens to go risk their livelihood? We determined that war is wrong so how do we replace the ideas of good and bad? To better answer that question, it is better to replace the employment of a soldier with a panther. In order to make someone who is not a painter become a painter, one would have to go through a seriesof tasks.First, cut off access to other mediums. Do not allow that person to work with anything other then painting. If they want to write a letter home, they paint it. If they want to create something three dimensional, they paint it. If they want to tell a story, they again, will paint it. Now there is no difference between the painter with their paintbrush, and the heighten with their rifle. Second, apply influences to cheering the ideals. The same recruited painter now needs to be surrounded with people who share the same ideals. The painter cannot have the influences of sculptors, graphic designers, or any other ambassador of other art form. The painter needs the overall support of peers with the subject matter. This again, is no different from the soldier and their peers. Third, discourage all other ideals. The facilitator, who is regulating the transition between non-painters to painters, needs to openly degrade the ideals of all other art forms. The facilitator needs to make sure that the recruits hear their passionate opinions about how other art forms are wrong. This will guide the recruits to also share the same ideals.This relationship resembles the relationship between Drill Instructors and their recruits. Fourthly, revival the title has a distinguished history of renowned individuals. For a painter, there are many distinguished individuals that made a dramatically difference within the realm of art. For some examples, there is Vincent Van Gough, Pablo Picasso, and Leonardo De Vinci. It is up to the facilitator to idolize these individuals in front of the forth-coming painters. This will give the recruited painters the expectations they need to become idolized into their new profession. This will also make the recruited painters strive to achieve the same honor. For the recruited soldier, they hear about the selfless actions of the Medal of Honor, Prisoners of War, and Purple Heart recipients. For them, they also strive to achieve that honor. Lastly, provide the ammonia alum with a quote that brands them with honor. For instance, EARTH, Semper Fi, or Army of One. This will give the graduate something to display as pride and unite them forever with the other individuals who also have endured the same training.Now returning back to the question, when does a paradox become a hypocrisy, the response needed to be evaluated for the literary device of hypocrisy. Is a good war is a war that teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them, a response of hypocrisy. Through the development of good and bad, we have concluded that war iswrong. To suggest otherwise would propose a state of insanity. Insanity is a derangement of the mind or not conforming. Since we have conclude that the popular prize is to say that war is wrong suggests that people who desire to go to war, miss war, or idolize war are insane. So are they insane? If the response, war teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them is true, than yes. However, the statement is hypocrisy and hypocrisy is the pretense of having. So reverting back to the practice of transitioning from non-painter to painter, the recruit became a painter. Now what if, during the transition, the recruit never got the opportunity to paint.The entire time the recruit was given black ink to practice the techniques of painting, but never received oil or acrylate resin paints. The recruit sat through ses sions where they viewed images of others painters and their colorful paintings, only to never receive color to paint with. After the transitions period, after the recruit was given the title of painter and hope to finally paint with color. However, the restriction continues and they again were never given oil or acrylic paints. They had practiced the trade for years without actual execution. The outcome is apparent. They will forever long to paint. This is the situation with the soldier. The soldier practices with blank ammunition for years, views images of state of war, practices the techniques of warfare, and never gets to execute their practices in war. The outcome is apparent. They will forever long for warfare. So in regards to the response, from the soldiers perspective, they would disagree because war cannot teach its mistakes without one having to live with them.They themselves desire warfare. However, for sanities sake, they would suggest the response to be true in the co mpany of other American citizens. This is the pretense of having and concludes the statement to be hypocrisy at least from the soldiers perspective. So does the statement apply to other citizens of America? Again, the response to the initial question suggests that war is wrong and a sane response is to agree with the statement. This implies that American citizens do not see the statement as hypocrisy. However, how much money is compile over the showing of one Hollywood movie about warfare? How much money and time is spent reading through the stories about warfare? How often do people find excitement when sharing a conversation with a veteran where they can ask individualised questions about their experiences? As peaceful people who agree with the statement,American citizens curiously find something compelling about war.It is not my position to accuse the masses of being warmongers. However, to defend the fairness of my response, the response is hypocrisy. It cannot teach its mist akes if people live vicariously through the experiences of war. Without war that satisfaction is taken away and the entertainment lost, suggesting that the mistakes arent learned theyre idolized. To propose other wise is the pretense of having or also known as hypocrisy. So can war teach its mistakes? Can the statement ever become true? Lets again look at the question, when does paradox become hypocrisy? and compare it to the response, a good war is a war that teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them. In order to make the response true we would have to rephrase the question. This time we will ask, when does paradox become ace? We have concluded that the response to the initial question is both a paradox and hypocrisy, but we have overlooked one literary device.Personification.Personification is the way of an abstraction in the form of a person. In the response we suggested that a good war is a paradox, and if war teaches its mistakes without one having to live wit h them is hypocrisy. However, the response also suggests that we have personified war. So in order to make the statement, a good war is a war that teaches its mistakes without one having to live with them true, we have to remove the avatar and rephrase the response to a good person is a person that teaches their mistakes without one having to live with them. By removing the literary device of personification we have successful removed the other literary devices of paradox and hypocrisy, and gave the response integrity.If a good person were to teach others about their lifes mistakes, perchance others could learn from them. It is the gift from the veteran of foreign wars to express to others the mistakes of warfare. From that point forward, it is up to the recipient of the gift to learn from the veterans mistakes. War cannot teach its mistakes because war as a whole removes the personal aspect of warfare. It gives the individual a number instead of a valued story. However, the indiv iduals personal story, the veteran, includes the emotional toll of warfare. From that personal story, the audience can now begin to understand the dysfunction of warfare and that personal story can be determine as the gift.