"One Day, Now Broken In Two" by Anna Quindlen

The principal aim of Anna Quindlen's "One Day, Now Broken In Two" is only a slight persuasion, but mostly on the side of being merely an explanation. This would be an explanation of a situation that she assumes the American public may be slightly aware of, but hasn't fully realized. In Kinneavy's Basic Purposes of Composition chart, the article would fall under the category of referential diagnosis. Quindlen's tone in the article gives the reader a sense that she is not attempting to persuade them of anything. She simply plays the role of a commentator, assuming her audience has no qualms with the topic, that there is nothing to argue.


Quindlen blurs Kinneavy's boundaries this way. She has a point to make, and when making a point, it generally requires some form of persuasion. However, Quindlen's point is driven home without any persuasion. It almost comes across as fact, as something that was hidden beneath the different sides of the argument. Her point being that there is no pessimistic or optimistic way of looking at the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. She explains that both are correct, which is the way the realists view it. The optimists say, "we are better people than we were before" and the pessimists say "we are people living in a world of unimaginable cruelty and savagery." The realists consider both. She does not persuade. She diagnoses the issue, that September 11 has been split in two: September 11 the day, and 9-11 the terrorist attack.