On the other hand O’ Harlons account didn’t seem to be as harsh, this could have happened due to the writers use of humour, for instance when James lent his friends pairs of socks and in brackets he proclaims “(they were desperate)” this can also be called irony. In O’ Harlons account it seems that the only bad or harsh thing was the leeches, if it was told in a more grusome way it would have had a bigger affect on how we portray the harsh conditions to be.
I found O’ Harlons account a lot more interesting than Dillards account. O’ Harlons account includes more words and phrases which keeps you interested in the text like “submerged” and “… Posterior suckers”.
O’ Harlons use of descriptive words were very successful in making sure he produced an enticing piece of writing. When he speaks of the leech, he gives a detailed but understandable description; he describes it to be “rubbery”…“tough”… and “brown and black”.
Lastly towards the end of O’ Harlons account, he uses imaginative vocabulary “It would have been annoying to have gulped…” This was an affective way to end the piece as it makes the reader think and want to read more.
When it came to the Dillards account I found it pretty boring as in parts the depth of the description went slightly over board especially when she begins to talk about “Inside the jungle… you would gladly live, or die.” When a writer goes into too much depth it cannot keep the writer focused so the reader would more than likely put it down. Sometimes though the description in the Dillard account is helpful and informative “what is there is interesting…sweat meated-fish”
The writers’ styles differ in a number of ways from humour to sophisticated vocabulary.
O’ Harlon uses humour, conversational language, not that much sophisticated words and a variety of vocabularies.
When James gets bitten or sucked by the leech at first his friends find it amusing like a joke “in fact James leech suddenly seemed much less of a joke” This means that there was a sense of humour behind the leech story. Dillard however doesn’t have any humour in his account.
O’ Harlon uses a lot of conversational language “ah my best friend…”etc… once again Dillards account doesn’t have any conversational language what so ever.
Between the two the narrative language differs as Dillard has more sophisticated and complexed vocabulary i.e.: “submerged” “convulsively” “iridescent” etc.
