Comparison Of Direct Diction In 'The Great Influenza'

John M. Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, writes about scientists and the obstacles they face. He claims that scientists are explorers in the wilderness that is science. There is no charted path to go down and no one to follow. Scientists will always be uncertain, however scientists should possess certain characteristics to overcome the doubt. He appeals to our emotions to explain the necessary characteristics a scientist has to posses. John M. Barry uses anaphoras, motifs, and pathos in his definition of what scientists do.

The first claim that Barry makes is that scientists need to be courageous in order to be heroic. To get this point across, he uses the rhetorical strategies of antithesis and diction. He says, “Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean. Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.” By presenting two contrasting ideas, certainty and uncertainty, Barry starts to suggest that a scientist’s job can include a lot of uncertainty.

In John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza” he states, “All real scientists exist on the frontier”(Barry 23). During the 1918 influenza epidemic Barry wrote “The Great Influenza” to describe the research that was happening revolving influenza. He describes different characteristic the scientist had to have researching the flu. He recognized the challenges that came with it. He also believes that if you are a scientist that you must be courageous to accept the uncertainty that comes with the job. “The Great Influenza” written by John M. Barry utilizes metaphors and descriptive diction to analyze the characteristics regarding scientist.

Attention Getting Device: John Barry, in his writing, The Great Influenza, he states, “To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept — indeed, embrace — uncertainty” (Barry 2). During all eras of time, scientists have endured enormous amounts of adversity. Scientists have had to maintain a wide variety of skills in several different areas to assist them in different circumstances that they endure. Scientists must have persistence, due to their main activity being trial and error. This means that once they have failed, they most certainly have to be willing to try it again. A scientist also must posses acceptance, as there will be times when they receive results that are not their predictions. Scientist must obtain acceptance to come to terms with the results found in their laboratory. In John Barry’s The Great Influenza, he utilizes metonymy and rhetorical questioning to characterize scientific research.

Sinclair Lewis's 1924 novel Arrowsmith follows a pair of bacteriologists, Martin Arrowsmith and his mentor Max Gottlieb, as they travel through various professions in science and medicine in the early decades of the twentieth century. Through the brilliant researcher Gottlieb and his protégé, Lewis explores the status and role of scientific work at universities, in industry, and at a private research foundation as well as in various medical positions. The picture he presents is one of tension and conflict between the goals and ideals of pure science and the environments in which his protagonists have to operate. Although Gottlieb and Arrowsmith are able to pursue their research

In his article, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry effectively employs powerful anaphoras and extended metaphors to illustrate how uncertainties in scientific research galvanize scientific advancements and progress.

In his book “The Great Influenza”, author John M. Barry writes about how scientific research is difficult and full of uncertainty. Barry uses concise syntax, repetition and negative describing words, in order to give the audience an idea about the struggles and uncertainty of scientific research.

Since the 17th century, the scientific method has served as a memorable procedure for its ability to characterize aspects of natural science. Its reliance on sense and reason allowed it to become the backbone of research for scientists, meant to make the unknown into something better understood and explored. Even still, this tried and true method cannot be deemed completely concrete. In his passage from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry utilizes various rhetorical devices in his process of characterizing scientific research, to demonstrate the similarities between scientists and the early pioneers.

At the beginning of the paragraph John M. Barry uses a metaphor to compare a scientist to the wilderness. If a person goes camping the individual needs the right equipment in order to be successful. The same goes for a scientist in two ways. One is if they are doing an experiment they need the right equipment in order to have a successful experiment. Two is that the scientist needs to have the right knowledge in order to understand and make sense of what they are doing.

What is scientific research without competent scientists? John M. Barry’s The Great Influenza, characterizes scientific research as a commendable venture. Barry uses rhetorical strategies such as repetition, compelling diction, and vivid imagery. These tactics aid the reader’s comprehension of the author’s purpose. The purpose is to convince readers that scientists require certain traits to overcome the challenges of scientific research. The passage in reference suggests that John M. Barry holds scientists in high regard.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

There is nothing more profound about the topic of science and technology than its ability to be a partner in helping to save lives. It is so influencial in coming up with the latest drugs to combat harmful and even deadly diseases and viruses such as AIDS, and some cancers. We are where we are today because of the remarkable innovations in science and technology. The idea that lives can be saved from such innovations as a new flu vaccine, or a new type of antibiotic that can battle chicken pox, and many other diseases. Its all about the advancements that we get from science and technology that let us live the way we do. Now, we dont have to worry about dying from the chicken pox or

Therefore, I believe that this threat had given the medical field the motivation to push to even greater heights, as the very survival of mankind depended on them. With the limited technology at that time, the many professionals of the medical field were hard pressed to look for faster and more efficient ways to find new cures for new diseases. However, they did not wither under pressure and had instead tried their best, determined to find a cure. Indirectly, this has improved the development of vaccines immensely. This leads me to believe that desperation is a very powerful tool, and in the face of death, we cannot help but try our best and do the unthinkable. Moreover, due to this outstanding accomplishment, I strongly believe that this incident is an inspiration for the future of the medical field, and will be a beckon of hope during dark

Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.

The ethos of science was always been about seeking for the truth. Ptolemy wanted to know what was in the heavens. Newton wanted to know about motion and force. Einstein wanted to know about protons and relativity. These scientists and many others have always had that pure desire of wanting to learn the truth about what they were interested. However, if we were to examine the present, scientists today are struggling not because of their truth-seeking journeys but because of the need to produce results so that they can still have the opportunity of keeping their jobs researching the subjects that they have researching for the past few years. In today’s lab, we see researchers scrounging around for grant money and yelling on the phone with