Dismantling the Worrier and the Warrior: A Lemon Squeeze
One first look, A Worrier and a Warrior Walk into a Bar presents a piece-by-piece analysis of a proverb. The author first states the proverb, âA worrier is a domesticated warrior,â and then begins to comment on it and define each word of it. The author frequently uses asyndeton, parenthesis, aetiologia, and epicrisis. While he employs some other tropes in this commentary, they are less frequent.
Argumentum ad populum drives the commentary as the author references âweâ in numerous passages. He wants the reader to join him on the trip of breaking apart and defining each word of the proverb, so therefore we have some tropes that appeal to the people in this commentary. In particular, we find erotesis, which draws the reader into the authorâs line of thinking, and parrhesia, which attempts to gain the confidence of the reader due to authorâs candor on the proverbâs final interpretation.
In the first paragraph, the author quotes a proverb by Professor Emeritus Jerome Shea, and then the author comments on that proverb. So, epicrisis appears first followed by parenthesis with the comma breaking the quote and the commentary. The author then provides two rounds of erotesis in the proceeding sentences to prime the readersâ thinking. In the last few sentences, he either uses digestion as he explains the process in which he will analyze the proverb, or diaeresis of the proverb as he divides the proverb into the words that compose it and explains how he will analyze it. I believe digestion makes more sense, but I believe one can argue from the point of diaeresis. Also, note that he uses parenthesis in each of these sentences.
Brevitas, epimone, and isocolon begin the second and third paragraphs as the author states, âFirst letâs take apart who a worrier is,â and âNow letâs delve into who a warrior is.â The following sentences in each paragraph also employ what I argue is epimone. He writes, âBased on three definitions of worry, Iâm inclined to believe that a worrier is one of the followingâŠâ We see the follow up to this, which corroborates the argument for epimone, in the next paragraph where he writes; âBased on two definitions of warrior, Iâm inclined to believe that a warrior is one of the followingâŠâ So, in both circumstances, we see a similar sentence composition and structureâso, we have epimone and isocolon. Also, I assert that epimone can apply to the first sentences of both paragraphs.
Moving back to the second sentence of the second and third paragraphs, the author lists definitions of worry and warrior. So, parenthesis, distinctio or anatomy, isocolon, and asyndeton act in these listings. To elaborate on anatomy and distinctio, consider the fact that the author presents several definitions for both of the words, which divides them into their constituent parts in terms of analyzing the proverb. For distinctio, consider the fact that the author explicitly states the definitions he wants us to consider for each of these words to allay the possibilities of misunderstanding the words. I feel that distinctio works better, but anatomy does the job, too.
Looking at the final sentences in both of these paragraphs, we find epicrisis and aetiologia. I argue that epicrisis applies in both cases because he comments on the definitions after citing them from a dictionaryâalthough he doesnât use quotation marks. So, because he comments on these definitions, he provides the reasons why the reader ought to be cognizant of those definitions and how those definitions will function at the end of the analysis.
The final sentence of the second paragraph deviates from the tight similarities between the two paragraphs. The author states, âAs we can see from these possible definitions, there may be more connections between a worrier and a worrier than previously anticipated.â I suggest that dissimile (although syncrisis may work, too, if we compare and contrast the definitions when they are listed) appears in the latter part of this sentence with âthan previously anticipated.â This shows that the author had preconceptions about the worryâs possible definitions, but did not anticipate at least one of the definitions listed. Thus, I suggest that the author implicitly shows that at least one of the definitions is dissimilar from the wordâs common known definitions.
In the following paragraph, we find prolepsis, expeditio, epicrisis, epanorthosis, and, of course, parenthesis. In the second sentence, the author conveys, âRather than let you have a chance to object, I believe that the seizing by the throat with teeth definition of worrier and the vigor, courage, or aggressiveness definition work best together.â Prolepsis functions here, in a limited capacity, because the author foresees that there will be objections to him selecting the less common, more controversial definitions of the words. He doesnât further forestall the potential objections, though, so, as stated, prolepsis isnât realized in its truest sense. The author employs expeditio in this sentence, too, because he rejects all but one definition for each of the words before creating a preliminary interpretation of the proverb.
In the final sentence of this paragraph, the author states, âThus, at this point, the statement seems to describe a violent person, a beast.â Epicrisis comes into play here, naturally, but at the end of the sentence, epanorthosis appears as well. The author comments on the proverbâs preliminary interpretation, epicrisis, and then fortifies âviolent personâ with âa beast.â In addition, I believe metaphor works in this instance. Finally, just to comment on it, parenthesis appears multiple times throughout this paragraph; but because itâs used in almost every sentence, I find listing it and examples of it numerous time to be overly laborious.
In the final two paragraphs, epicrisis, parenthesis, anatomy or distinctio, asyndeton, deliberation, prosopographia, aetologia, parrhesia, and debatably martyria appear. In the second to last paragraph, we find a similar structure to the previous paragraphs on defining worrier and warrior. In this paragraph, the author defines domesticated, so we see the same types of tropes as the other definition paragraphsâepicrisis, parenthesis, anatomy or distinctio (for the same reasons argued above), and asyndeton. However, a new trope rears its head in the final sentence of this paragraph. The author states, âSo, I think any of these definitions will work for our purposes, but I will use the third definition.â Here the author deliberates briefly on which definition to use and then makes a decision. So, deliberatio works in a limited capacity. While the author doesnât elaborate on all of the possible choices, he does state that all of the definitions are possibilities. Thus, deliberatio finishes this paragraph.
In the final paragraph, we find the usual suspects listed above, but the new tropes to enjoy are prosopographia, parrhesia, and martyria. In the second part of the first sentence, he writes, ââa person who mangles the throats of others with his teeth is a person adapting to an aggressive environment.ââ I understand that the author simply defines his final interpretation of the proverb, but I believe that prosopographia works with this sentence. The author describes the character of a person who suffers from severe social problems, like a devil for example. In the next sentence, we find aetiologia as the author explains why he will only provide one interpretation of the proverb.
Lastly, in the final sentence, parrhesia and martyria arrive. The author conveys, âFrankly, though, Iâm shocked to come to this conclusion.â In the first part, I assert that parrhesia works with the argumentum ad populum angle of this commentary. The author speaks candidly by using âFrankly.â In the second part, I argue that martyria works with the statement. The author conveys that from his experience research and writing the commentary, he is surprised to come to the interpretation of the proverb he described. Since martyria refers to oneâs own experiences, and the author implicitly states that experience, I assert that martyria does, indeed, function in this sentence.
At last we conclude this Lemon Squeeze. To summarize the tropes that appeared in the commentary, we most frequently saw asyndeton, parenthesis, aetiologia, and epicrisis. The author employed those as his primary means to convey his argument in the commentary. The tropes that added depth to the commentary included erotesis, brevitas, isocolon, and anatomy or distinctio. The tropes that reinforced his points were dissimile or syncrisis, deliberatio, parrhesia, and martyria. So, from all of these tropes, we can infer that the author wanted to show that he reasoned his interpretation based on facts, commented on those facts, and that we, the readers, ought to accept his interpretation and discover other interpretations. While we can debate the plausibility of his reasoning, we must accept that tropes help posit his interpretation.
