Summary Of Sarah Vowell's Shooting Dad

Shooting Dad, by Sarah Vowell, is a story about the author's relationship with her dad, herself, and guns. Not being a huge fan of guns, as much as her father is, she continues to live with her father in a "divided house,'' confirming that one of them is republican and another is democratic. Instead of the author starting off the story with " i am a gunsmith's daughter,'' she created a short explanation of both point of views, herself and her father, allowing the audience to have a better understanding of the situation. This , of course, is effective to the reader to capture a sense or feel into what the author is trying to express with statement as '' a home for the civil war'' or ''hunter's orange was never my color.''

The essay is structured chronologically, which helps the reader follow his story. Staples says, “That was more than a decade ago” (Staples para 2) near the beginning of the article, then states “I moved to New York nearly two years ago” (Staples para 4) later on. By structuring the article chronologically, it helps the reader compare and contrast the article from the beginning to the

Mitford’s tone can be described as comical. Mitford provides a humorous take on embalming by calling the process a “drama” in paragraph one. She also explains the process of embalming by listing off many different words, which hint at the extremely detailed and sarcastic process to be described ahead, in paragraph two.

She still uses the rhetorical technique of juxtaposition but she adds more techniques to it which explains her differences with her and her father. She talks about her different hobbies she has from her dad, “all he ever cared about were guns, all I ever cared about was art” (Vowells). The way the author describes her thoughts towards guns is totally different from her and her sister. In paragraphs 9-13 she writes about her attitudes toward guns and how her sister loves more than Vowell does. She uses parallelism and pathos to discuss about how Sarah dislikes the use of guns but her sister adores it. Explaining on how her own experience of guns around her house are horrible for society. Although, she does not seem to get along with her dad she does towards the end of her story talk about how her relationship towards him has changed into a positive

While communicating her main story, Griffin puts into words two other incidents in order to help the readers understand her notions. These two storylines are placed seemingly in a random way in italicized sentences between passages throughout the essay. The first are descriptions

She shares her thoughts of seeing the gun as a killing-machine, while her father sees them as her favorite tool. This proves that Vowell had always been tough minded the moment she had her hands down and decided that guns were not for her. Where else, her twin sister, Amy, shares her father’s enthusiasm for firearms, making her feel sort of like and outcast in the family. Later in the story, Vowell realizes that they do share some similarities, although both of them have totally different passions. This was shown by her during the event of accompanying her dad to shoot off his dad’s cannon at Montana. She later finds out that she “…was no longer his adversary” (SV 139) and stated that she “…was his accomplice” (SV 139). She depicts the irony of the whole situation by admitting to readers that she was indeed, liking it. “... what’s worse, I was liking it.” (SV 139). She also compares the loud sound of the gun when she was little to the sound of her dad’s cannon and finds herself finally embracing her dad’s passion instead of rejecting it like before. When her dad dies, Sarah vows that she is willing to embrace her dad’s death by shooting his ashes off from his cannon during the start of Hunting Season. In the story, Sarah proves to maintain her independence, personality and characteristics-wise. For Sarah, the occurrence of that somewhat meaningful event in her

Sarah Vowell’s “Shooting Dad” discusses the relationship between a daughter and father. Engaged in a lifelong opposition to her father’s politics, interests, and his work, Vowell discovers just how much she actually has in common with him. Throughout her adolescent years, she was her father’s polar opposite. Her room was littered with musical instruments, albums, and Democratic campaign posters while her father’s, an avid gunsmith, was strewn with metal shavings and Republican party posters. Amongst all this conflict, Vowell found that they had more in common with each other than either of them realized. As she looks back on her childhood, Vowell explains that although it may take a while to see and understand others’ perspectives, once you

The appeal is first accomplished by the organization of the piece. The essay is divided in nine sections based on the type of lie being discussed. Furthermore, the essay is easier to understand when divided in such a way. Historical context is next used, achieving quite a similar purpose to the organization of the piece. For instance, The Attack on Pearl Harbor is brought up when providing an example for groupthink, a type of lie presented in the piece (pg. 165). Because groupthink may be an unfamiliar, perhaps complex, concept for some, this historical context makes the point of groupthink easier to understand, helping the purpose be more accessible and simple. Similarly, the use of anecdotes assists the author in establishing her objective for writing the essay. . An example can be found when author details a time when she found out that some Jewish teachings tell of a woman in the Garden of Eden before Eve and how she felt that she had been spiritually robbed. She details this when describing a lying technique called omission (pg. 163). Since the author gives anecdotes, she makes her points more relatable and helps the audience better understand the points being

On page 125, When she was nine, my daughter asked if i had ever killed anyone. She knew about the war, she knew i’d been a soldier . “You keep writing these war stories,” she said,” So i guess you must’ve killed somebody”. It was a difficult moment , but i did what seemed right, which was to say, “ of course not”, and then to take her onto my lap and hold her for a while. Someday , i hope , she’ll ask again. But here i want to pretend she’s a grown -up….}. This quote shows that Kathleen is just a young girl asking many questions to her dad to know if he has ever did anyone because she is very curious and seemed very interested in knowing what her father did when he was in the war. If her dad tells her that he has killed someone then she might think that he is a bad guy and not a good father but killing someone that is so

In Sarah Vowell’s essay she talks about her life and the role her father and guns have played in it. Being a gunsmith, her father’s life revolves around guns and he loves it. This is not a view shared by his daughter who finds that guns are constantly getting in her space. Due to this overabundance of guns and gun-loving ideas in the household and her father trying to force his own republican opinion on her, Sarah has developed a strong distaste for guns.

I was mortified when my dad purposely farted in Buehler's. Two minutes prior we had been walking down aisles joking about stuff in the store and poking fun at my little sister. Then all of the sudden he looked around, saw we were pretty much alone in the aisle and farted. I immediately gave him the ‘I cannot believe you just did that’ look and he just laughed, not seeming to mind that a Buehlers associate was only a couple yards from us. When I think about this it is easy for me to say that I am nothing like my Father. Sarah Vowell also felt very different compared to her dad when she wrote the essay “Shooting Dad”. However when Vowell looks past their differences she finds how similar she is to her Father. I find this to be true about many child-parent relationships, even if the child does not wish to be like their parents. Children cannot prevent themselves from becoming similar to their parents.

Both “Arm Wrestling with My Father” and “Shooting Dad” written by Brad Manning and Sarah Vowell, respectively, portrays a damaged and rough relationship that a son and/or daughter holds with his father. Although they both find themselves struggling, they are dealing with different things, Manning is dealing with a physical bounding, while Vowell finds herself handling a more emotional and communicative type of bonding. Eventually, both characters find themselves in a mature relationship over time. The characters had similarities and also differences with their respective father. Throughout the stories, both authors dig into the relationship between child and father and how it can be shaped and changed over time.

The use of foreshadowing in the short story urges the reader on, to figure out the long-awaited answers. When Rainsford, the protagonist of the story, hears the gunshots in the exposition of the story, the reader might pick up the foreshadowing hint that Connell drops. As Rainsford reclines on the boat, he hears a gun going off. He has wonderful hearing skills; he knows he “could not be mistaken” (15). A little while later, he hears them again, a “crisp, staccato” (16) sound, which he dubs a “pistol shot” (16). This gun must be important, the reader thinks, because of the detail the author put into this seemingly innocent item. Subtly, Connell also inserts a mention of the gun in a couple scenes throughout the beginning scenes. It is a necessary object. This anyone can tell by the author’s effort on it and Rainsford’s keen knowledge of the gun.

This example is effective in emphasizing the importance of this chapter. The chapter is called “The Answer” because in this chapter, Smith and Hickock finally reveal their crime. In another example, "The furniture of the den, a cement-floored room that ran the length of the house, consisted almost entirely of examples of his carpentry (shelves, tables, stools, a ping-pong table) and Nancy's needlework (chintz slip covers that rejuvenated a decrepit couch, curtain, pillows bearing legends: Happy? and You Don't Have To Be Crazy To Live Here But It Helps)" (38) Capote uses parenthetical phrases in order to develop his character’s behaviors or lifestyles. This sentence structure brings outside information that is not necessarily needed, but it adds somewhat of a comical tone. The development of The Clutters is vital because the entire novel revolves around their murder. The reader can sympathize for this family because they did not deserve their tragic deaths. The final example, "And myself... In Juneau, my father as making bootleg hooch" (273) is written in Perry's letter of confessions. He went off to describe himself as who truly was. Within the letter, his use of contradictions over contradictions shows his doubt and hesitation. Perry did not feel comfortable revealing that not only he did engage in illegal activities, but his father did as well. The details also shows pain due to the fact that Perry lost most of his family at a young age.

“My Papa’s Waltz” is a poem by Theodore Roethke in which a young boy describes the actions of his father under the influence of alcohol. Like most children, the young boy has a naïve mind that observes his father's abuse differently. To the child, it is all a graceful waltz, but he is covering the truth with a happy illusion. This might come from the fact that he is a child and does not know enough or he knows too much and has to numb the pain. In “My Papa’s Waltz” Theodore Roethke uses dramatic irony, understatement, and hyperbole in order to express the idea that in order to numb the pain, one covers it with a happy illusion.