Sharma 1

Yashesvi Sharma

Ms. Brown

AP English Language & Composition

11 December 2023

Given the incredible biodiversity of our earth, it becomes difficult to deduce a common

denominator between all life forms. Found in kinships, family structures, between partners, and

among communities, love is an all-powerful force, with the ability to unite when necessary. With

its sheer importance, love can also be the start of destruction and despair. In “Joyas Voladoras'',

Brian Doyle argues that regardless of their sheer size, biological characteristics, and lifestyle, all

organisms experience love as it is a universal form of connection. Through his juxtaposition

between the hummingbird and blue whale, his use of intense anatomical detail and succinct,

simple sentences, Doyle is ultimately able to not only validate, but encourage his audience to be

vulnerable with one another, to love deeply and freely.

Doyle’s clever juxtaposition of the hummingbird and whale introduces the two sides of

the same coin that is love. In the beginning, when discussing the hummingbird, he describes

them as visiting “a thousand flowers a day” (Doyle 2). By doing this, Doyle suggests that

hummingbirds are representative of young, new, romantic love; the kind that is beautiful and

marvelous to experience. He later depicts images of the hummingbird’s death, portraying the

same romantic love described earlier is fickle, and at times, shallow. On the contrary, Doyle takes

on a much more melancholic approach when describing the blue whale. Later on in the passage,

he paints them as animals that “generally travel in pairs” (Doyle 4). Unlike the romantic,

attraction-based love aforementioned, the blue whale’s lifestyle suggests a deeper, intimate, yet

tragic form of love. Much like how the blue whale’s life ends abruptly, to a devastating halt, this
 Sharma 2

deeper form of love ends when the lives of these individuals do as well. This juxtaposition

between the two animals establishes the varying forms of love on a scale, helping the audience to

understand how love manifests differently depending on the emotion and its perception within

society.

In the midst of juxtaposing the hummingbird and blue whale, Doyle uses intense

anatomical detail to not only exaggerate the juxtaposition further, but to expand upon the varying

forms of love depicted earlier. After describing the anatomical marvel that is a hummingbird’s

heart given its size yet resiliency, Doyle comments on their heart muscles by saying they are “[..]

stripped to the skin [...]” (Doyle 3). This elaborates upon the idea of romantic love, and how it is

all-consuming. The physical strain that the hummingbird experiences due to their heart is

synonymous with an individual’s emotional strain that accompanies romantic, attraction-based

love. Furthermore, when describing the blue whale’s heart, Doyle uses detail to support the sheer

vastness of it. At birth, blue whales are, he writes, “[...] twenty feet long and weigh[s] four tons”

(Doyle 4). The size depicted of this organism’s heart supports the idea that the blue whale

represents deeper, intimate, and at times, devastating love. While the initial message could be

interpreted through the lens that having a bigger heart makes one more capable of deeper love,

this is not the case. Doyle sets up the initial juxtaposition between the two animals and expands

upon it through anatomical detail in order to support his argument that regardless of physical and

biological differences, all organisms experience love, whether that be through emotional

vulnerability or romantic feeling.

Finally, Doyle uses short, succinct simple sentences and exaggerated, drawn-out complex

sentences to support his portrayals of both the hummingbird and blue whale. Doyle initially

compares the hummingbird to a machine, writing “You burn out. You fry the machine. You melt
 Sharma 3

the engine” (Doyle 3). The sentences in this section rarely go beyond a few words and follow a

similar beginning phrase, also known as an anaphora. The structure of these sentences

automatically quickens the pace of the essay, simulating the rapidity of the hummingbird’s

lifestyle for the reader. Indirectly, the syntax used in this section of the essay supports the

descriptions of the hummingbird laid out earlier. This proves to be true when Doyle describes the

blue whale using drawn-out complex sentences by writing “It drinks a hundred gallons of milk

[...] and gains two hundred pounds a day [...]” (Doyle 4). The continuous use of the word “and”

draws out the sentence both visually, but also in an auditory sense for the reader. Much like the

vastness of the whale’s heart conveyed earlier, the sentences describing the whale themselves are

complex and elaborative. Doyle’s choice to shift his syntax from short, simple sentences to

exaggerated, complex ones builds upon the spectrum of different types of love laid out earlier.

His ability to build upon the juxtaposition between the two animals with the incredible level of

anatomical detail and shift in syntax, Doyle ultimately meets his purpose of encouraging the

audience to love freely and openly, all by arguing that love is a universal feeling that all

organisms must experience.

 Sharma 4

Reflection:

(1) I made a significant amount of changes in my final draft. For starters, my initial essay

didn’t not cover multiple rhetorical devices, and the flow of the thesis statement itself did

not make sense. I think this is because under the pressure of this being a timed write

combined with the complexity of the passage, I did not have a clear vision as to what

exactly I was trying to say. In my revised draft, I made sure my thesis was the “roadmap”

to my essay, outlining exactly what I would be discussing everything and how it ties back

into the author’s argument and exigence. Also, I needed to reframe my purpose, as

initially I wrote the author’s purpose was to juxtapose the two animals, which simply is

not true. I made many structural and content-based changes in my essay in order to

clarify my voice and adhere to the AP rubric.

(2) The changes I made dramatically improved the essay. By clarifying my thesis statement

through specifying the various rhetorical devices used, I had more to talk about and as a

result, my essay was longer. These changes overall helped me to convey my voice better

and organize my thoughts. In my initial essay, my purpose was not clear and the

argument was nearly irrelevant to the passage. The changes I made helped me to

understand the passage better along the way, resulting in a fully-fledged essay. In one of

my rhetorical choices, I mentioned syntax, which was an improvement from last time, as

the evidence for this choice proved to jump out at me. Not only that, it was easy to tie

back into the rest of the essay and author’s purpose. This addition strengthened the

arguments laid out earlier in my essay, supporting my endeavors to prove that the

author’s argument was in fact, valid.

(3) AP rubric scores and justifications are as follows:

 Sharma 5

(a) Thesis: 1/1 - I believe my essay earned the thesis point because in the rubric, it

states that the statement must respond to the prompt in a defensible manner. In

regards to my specific statement, someone can disagree with me and use evidence

that contradicts my ideas. I also used multiple sentences (2) for this point, but they

were close in proximity to one another.

(b) Evidence & Commentary: 4/4 - I gave my essay this point because there are

multiple instances in which I employed evidence from the text and expanded upon

it to garner support for my thesis. I did this across three body paragraphs, using

two pieces of evidence for each. When describing contrasting ideas in regards to

the hummingbird or whale, I used a piece of evidence for each to prove my point

thoroughly for that specific rhetorical choice.

(c) Sophistication: 1/1 - I awarded myself this point because I provided an

introductory hook in the beginning, discussing the text’s significance in a larger

scope. Additionally, I briefly referred to a counterargument that one could make

to my previously established claim, and then refuted it directly after through the

use of evidence and commentary. I also believe that the connections I made

between the descriptions of the animals and real life provided greater insight into

the meaning of the text itself.