Analysis Of Edward Hoagland's The Courage Of Turtles

Edward Hoagland is an animal lover at heart, saying that he has owned “dogs, cats, turtles, snakes, alligators, pigeons, possums, goats” while he was in his home state of Connecticut (Stuttering Foundation). He writes about animals and their conservations often. He has many works, 60 years’ worth, of conservation of animals fueled by this relentless desire to write for animals who cannot write for themselves (Stuttering Foundation). An example of these animals that need a voice are turtles. Turtles are a less familiar species that are easily overlooked by humans. Hoagland give a voice to overlooked turtles and enlightens us on the unfortunate species. In Hoagland’s essay, “The Courage of Turtles,” he brings their issues to light and entices …show more content…
For example, in the ASPCA commercials, Sarah McLachlan intrigues an expression of good will by saying: “Don’t let another animal suffer. Don’t stand by. Be the help.” Secondly, logical appeals are meant to entice your sense of facts and logic to entrust the author’s claims. Again, in the ASPCA commercials there are facts, such as “Every hour in BC, an animal is violently abused” and “3,000 animals were rescued last year”. Lastly, emotional appeals aim to apply pressure to your emotions to make you believe something the author has said and feel sympathy or excitement for the author’s claim. When you’re watching an ASPCA commercial there are animals crying, hurting, and shaking, then someone asks you to donate. This appeals to your sympathy for the animals and makes you want to donate to the …show more content…
Hoagland entices our sympathy using basic knowledge of turtles and their behaviors. For example, Hoagland describes a turtle’s head “like a napalm’s victim’s [head]” (Hoagland, E.153). Napalm burns can be quite severe and shows the distress of the turtles’ daily life. He presents an awful “ugliness” to the turtle and their misshaped and burned head provides a sense of sympathy. He then concludes to “the [turtle’s] pluck and optimism [while] trying to escape” from capture (Hoagland, E. 154). The turtles are constantly having to defend themselves to go back to their normal routines due to human confliction. Hoagland presents brutal ways that the turtle is being hurt by humans’ ignorance. He describes a turtle’s painted shell as “invisibly… crushing [them]” (Hoagland, E.154). The reader automatically feels sympathy for the turtles and possibly frustration towards the painter. The painter is ignorantly killing a turtle for aesthetic purposes. Although the painter may not know what she’s doing, the turtle will suffer the rest of its life. Hoagland presents a suffering turtle by his own hands when he threw a turtle into the Hudson River, but immediately regret it and could do nothing about it (Hoagland, E. 155).Hoagland didn’t think about is turtle; he was selfish. He thought about how rough his life was with the turtle and, again, there was nothing he could do about it. Although