ESTELLE SNYDERS

ES EDUCATION SERVICES

Model essay for paper CIE 9093 Paper 13 November 2019 Question 1

It is most striking that even though this extract is taken from Carlos Magdalena’s
autobiography, it contains no personal anecdotes or life stories about Magdalena
himself. This anomaly might be explained by Magdalena’s nickname: “the Plant
Messiah” because it hints at Magdalena’s love for the survival of all flora. In this
extract from his biography, Magdalena focuses the reader’s attention on his life’s
work and passion: plants.
Being a Plant Messiah or saviour, Magdalena elects to endow plants with human
characteristics to make them more relatable. Readers can easily recognise the
nurturing actions Magdalena explains in paragraph one; the personified plants “help
out their neighbours” and “support seedlings”. Magdalena wards off the readers’
incredulity with the warning: “Believe it or not”, and by using of an assertive tone
when he states all the human-like actions that plants perform; they “interact via vast
webs” and they “use their fungal networks”. To further help readers understand how
plants communicate, Magdalena uses a simile to compare the actions of “mature
trees” with those of nurturing parents who “care for children”.
Immediately after focusing on plants’ ability to nurture and communicate, Magdalena
uses the discourse marker “But” to introduce trees’ ability to distinguish between
wanted and unwanted neighbours. Again, personification is used to endow plants
with emotions in order to explain their defence mechanisms. If trees are “not …
happy” with neighbours, they will release “chemicals from their roots into the
underground web” to deter them. Some trees are characterised as “nature’s
weedkillers”, ridding their environment of harmful species.
Magdalena’s tone changes in paragraph three. His writing becomes less figurative
and more literal. Having captured the readers’ attention with his provocative imagery
in the first two paragraphs, he proceeds to write in a more objective manner. In order
to communicate succinctly what plants are capable of, he lists how they
communicate and survive. It is noteworthy that Madgalena, even in this more literal
section, uses active verbs which imply that the trees make conscious decisions to
“receive”, “translate”, “respond”, “attract”, “use”, “host” and “establish”. He endows
the trees with agency that elevates them above non-sentient beings.
Magdalena is obviously awed by the wonder of plants. He illustrates the complexity
of plants in the image of a “single leaf” containing “constellations of millions of cells”.
He also emphasises the uniqueness of each “plant species” in the metaphor, “Each
gene is a word; each organism, a book”. Such images work together with his appeal
to conserve and preserve plants as it emphasises the immensity of the loss of any
plants because “Each plant species that dies out contains words that have been
written only in that book.” He uses emotive imagery to capture how imperative plant
conservation is, and how ignorant people are who “destroy a hectare of pristine
habitat”, likening it to “burning a great library”, thereby tapping into his readers’
abhorrence of such vandalism. His short, punchy statement, “They are the key to our

1
 ESTELLE SNYDERS
ES EDUCATION SERVICES
long term survival”, directly links the “survival” of plants and humans. The brevity of
the statement adds to its impact by placing the emotive concept of “survival”
prominently at the end of the sentence.
Madgalena realises that the way in which he captured the imagination of the readers
in the opening paragraphs, by appealing to their sense of wonder, might create the
impression that he is writing mumbo-jumbo, thereby reducing the credibility of his
work. He thus states unequivocally that “This is not magic or witchcraft, but another
frontier of knowledge”. He wants his readers to take him seriously so that he can
convince them to conserve and preserve plants.
His approach changes yet again towards the end of the extract when he confronts all
human beings and accuses them of behaving like “headless chickens”. In an extract
where many paragraphs are filled with complex statements and illustrations, this one
accusatory sentence stands alone. Magdalena is isolating it to increase its shock
effect and force his readers into reconsidering and changing their actions.
Having levelled his accusation at mankind’s lack of collective focus, Magdalena uses
a hypophora to guide his readers into understanding their ability to make a
contribution. To the hypophora, “So what can we do?”, Magdalena, the Plant
Messiah, replies with his three favoured suggestions. The style employed in the
hypophora subtly obliges the reader to respond positively. Magdalena states the
question as if the readers themselves are asking the question, “What can we do?”.
But the first person plural gives the impression that Madgalena is including himself in
the dilemma and solution, thus affirming his sincerity in caring about the future of
plant species.
His final solution: “Harness the power of plants” leads directly to his next paragraph
in which he extolls the unique properties of plants; they are “the only things” in the
entire “universe” that can store energy and absorb carbon dioxide. Magdalena’s use
of antithesis and chiasmus in “What we exhale, they inhale; what we inhale, they
exhale” develops a catchy rhythm, mimics breathing and creates a slogan. He
deliberately uses style to help readers remember this statement about an activity
essential to life: respiration.
Magdalena uses emotive words and images throughout the passage, but he
concludes this extract with an appeal that sounds a lot like a speech – some would
say a sermon, with the use of “Amen” at the end – because he uses so many
rhetorical devices in the last three paragraphs. He implies that, as in the past, there
are people who deny the obvious until they are faced with irrefutable proof. But the
illustration he chooses is part of his indictment against human beings. People who
held onto the belief that the earth was flat became the stereotype of ignoramuses,
and the butt of many jokes. Magdalena implies that climate change deniers are in the
same league as flat-earthers. He berates people for stupidity and states categorically
that if we ruin Earth, “We don’t deserve another” planet. He ends with a direct appeal
to “turn things around” and most tellingly, focuses his readers on plants once more
by instructing them to “garden” and “green” their “way out of this apocalypse”. His
last word is “future”, thereby returning to the concept of “survival”.