Eureka!

Whilst reading Montaigne, besides finding it to be dense, I also found it to be similar to Lott because of his use of qoutes. Montaigne references history and uses this for his own reflection. For instance he specifically begins with a tale of King Croseus in order to set the stage for what he is trying to put for to his audience. Therefore he is using other writers and points of references to build storyline. This compares to to Lott's more contemporary essay in which he uses block quoatations to make his point. Neither Lott nor Montaigne use plot, storyline, etc. It is purely an essay of an opinion that the author is trying to set forth and they have used validation from other writers to back their points up. Lott's essay is different as it gives more opinion to us and is more extended. Lott does not reference any history nor does he speak in another language. He is cyclic in his essay, thus making his point more round and poignant. I found Montaigne's essay to be have emotional and passionate tones whereas Lott's was strictly educational and opinionated.

Orwell uses more of a storyline in his narrative. He incorporates a plot, theme, setting, perspective, and dramatic plot. He also introduces characters. Orwell forms this true-to-life tale in the form of a short story. This is comparable to Beard's narrative and as well as Kincaid's. Kincaid and Orwell are similar as they are both memories in which the author reflected back on years later, giving it the story-like element. They both have raw emotional undertones yet Kincaid's are more apparent then Orwell. Beard and Orwell are comparable in the narrative is written from the perspective of self acknowledgement of a lesson learned. Yet, all the stories have one thread in common, there is an Aha moment, and that is the reason why the author is writing. They want to immortalize the Eureka they have found to be true and share it with others as well.