Existential Death’s of Despair
In the article, “The Age of American Despair”, Ross Douthat argues that deaths caused by alcohol, suicides, and drug abuse are a more pressing priority than other problems in society. The solution, he claims, is a renewal of an existential meaning of life for society as a whole, which is a considerably difficult fix to conjure for the citizens of America. Although what are referred to as “deaths of despair” in the article have claimed many lives, there are other conflicts weighing more heavily on the entire world rather than just this portion of it. With no traceable causes, and a cognitive existential cure as its solution, this is a not a problem that officials, or the world, can really tackle.
Aiding those who are suffering from these deaths of despair is not a problem, however, devoting all efforts to them would be counteractive in the pursuit to cure them, due to their root being so openly up for debate. How can there be a plan enforced to stop a problem that has a plethora of personal causes? While the direct root of these deaths is said to be either spiritual, economic, or political, in order to stop them, what is provoking these ailments has to be known. However, why people choose to drink, or do drugs, or commit suicide, is not information that victims or their families always want to share. Therefore, it makes pin-pointing the true cause of these deaths hard to name, and thus, preventative measures to stop them even harder to implement.
Wrangling an epidemic with so many unknown variables will only lead to more questions and debacles with trying to fix it. Having no solution to this problem may also turn people away from wanting to help. It should also be taken into consideration that addiction is a very hard battle to fight. It takes dedication and hard work to climb that mountain. This can be turbulent for those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol or both, and do not want to get better. All efforts should not be devoted to those who are not looking or willing to be helped.
There is hope that, one day, we can eradicate these deaths of despair, however, we need more concrete ways of finding treatments for them before we label them as mission number one. In order to reduce the number of these deaths, it is going to take humanity hand in hand changing their lifestyle and looking closely at what society can do better as a whole.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
What an immensely better version you ended up with than you started with, Angelina. I hope you appreciate the value of working so hard on your revisions. Your final draft is much more nuanced and likely to gain support from readers.
LikeLike
Thank you so much, it is very rewarding to see the improvements of my writing style just over the course of a few months!
LikeLike
OK, Wordsmith. Let’s get to it.
—There’s a lot of information here from Douthat here, Wordsmith, and one claim of your own. But your own claim is followed by more information from Douthat, so it’s lost in the mix.
—Sentence 1. This sets the scene but needs explanation.
—Sentence 2. You put climate change and deaths of despair in the same sentence but without connecting them, so when you say “THESE deaths of despair,” we think we’ve missed the connection.
—Sentence 3. You say “deaths of despair” two more times, still without explaining what they are, and claim they are not Priority One. [This should be followed by your declaration of what IS our first priority.]
—Sentence 4. Not knowing what deaths of despair ARE, we’re in no position to evaluate his diagnosis.
—Sentence 5. A renewed sense of the value of life DOES sound like a good prescription to cure death by despair, but where’s your point of view in this paragraph? We need a reason to follow YOUR argument more compelling than getting a summary of what Douthat wrote.
I see that we get your own position in paragraphs to come:
—In order to stop [suicide, drugs, alcohol abuse], the cause of the ailments needs to be known.
—Victims and their families don’t share that information.
—Getting and giving help require known and proven solutions.
—Addiction is very persistent and resistant to cure.
—Effort should be spent on the most likely cures, not wasted on the hopeless.
—We need more concrete ways of finding treatments for despair.
How much of that message can you deliver WITHOUT continuing to reference Douthat, Wordsmith? His opinions seem to be getting in the way of you making your own case.
And how quickly can you get your own position before readers? They may not spend two paragraphs on your letter if you start with so much summary.
Ideally, you could dispatch the basic Douthat position in a single sentence, move directly to your primary objection or counterclaim, and THEN fill in whatever else we need to know about the deaths of despair that are the occasion for you to have your say about how difficult it is to cure depression and the addictions it spawns.
Does that make sense? Do you need LESS advice, or more prescriptive examples, to help you process all that feedback? Let’s keep the conversation going, CynicalWordSmith. I’m still learning what helps you best.
LikeLike
Wordsmith, you didn’t make a specific Feedback request. I will return to offer feedback, but first I’ll respond to your classmates who gave me guidance about the sort of responses they wanted.
LikeLike
My mistake! And that is understandable. I was looking for feedback on the organization of the letter and the points that I used in the letter. I found I was having trouble with forming my counter claims against Douthat.
LikeLike