[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

[nacho]

I'll be posting all my essays here for you guys to mark, whilst myself, will attempt to mark your essays.
Good on werdna for thinking of this great !dea.

Text: Maestro
Context: Encountering conflict - texts[ The Crucible, The Rug maker of Mazar-e-sharif ]
Film: On the waterfront
SS Aim: 45+

[nacho]

In the article “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published on the 17th of December in the Herald Sun, the writer Andrew Bolt incessantly stresses how the government is responsible for the deaths of those asylum seekers by “recklessly weakening our boat people laws”. He adopts an assertive and somewhat irritated tone to make it clear that “Labor’s fatal laws” are long overdue for a revision. Andrew Bolt uses his arguments to appeal to the general public in order to make them realise that the “pious Leftist” government are luring asylum seekers to their demise.

Essential to his cause is to sculpt an image of a “recklessly criminal” government that is reluctant in admitting fault and unwilling to take any actions to mend them. Andrew Bolt does this by spamming the audience with an onslaught of questions in his opening sentence when he says “It’s too early to blame the Gillard government… But why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?” In the last sentence “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” Bolt is successful in highlighting that a grim future awaits those who set to the docks to seek asylum in Australia. To further his aim of defaming the government Bolt repeatedly says “they lie” to incessantly remind his audience how unreliable the government is. Bolt indents to use the audience’s freshly acquired sceptical views of the government to support him in to demanding that the government revert to the previous laws on asylum seekers.

Andrew Bolt, keeping in regard that members of his audience may be compassionate or have bias views on asylum seekers, goes to reveal alarming statistics of the surge of influx of asylum seekers and the current death toll. “from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone… when exactly can we point out that these latest 28 or more people to drown were lured to their deaths – just like up to 170 others – by a government that reckless weakened our boat people laws, despite repeated warning it would lead to just this kind of tragedy?” The statistic makes the reader aware of the fact that an average of 1 person dies per boat arrival. To firm pin the blame on the government, for the deaths of asylum seekers it has invited, Andrew Bolt positions the reader to feel that for all those who graciously invite asylum seekers to our shores, many are being lead to their perdition.

To further repudiate the government’s laws on boat people, Bolt quotes Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Collective who states that “If the Australian Government was willing to properly process asylum seekers in Indonesia and resettle successful refugees in Australia, then far fewer people would get on boats to travel to Australia.” This goes to highlight that “the government’s soft policies” may be two sided and hold ulterior motives. The audience are left to muse over why the government didn’t process asylum seekers in Indonesia, but instead softened boat people laws. A seed of distrust has finally been planted in the minds of the audience and questions of great concern stem from this seed, such as perhaps the government wants asylum seekers to have a tougher journey to Australia, and if this is the case, our government is encouraging asylum seekers to risk their lives. With this, Andrew Bolt is successful in sculpting an image of a lying and reckless government which is responsible for many deaths, and if no action is taken soon, will be responsible for many more.

[liuetenant]

INTRO:
you've started to throw in a lot of quotes already from the artcile without explaining much of them. "pious leftists" for example can really be explained and analysed further, so i suggest that you reserve that for one of ur body paragraphs.

BODY 1:
-"spamming" not very good expression
-

Essential to his cause is to sculpt an image of a “recklessly criminal” government that is reluctant in admitting fault and unwilling to take any actions to mend them. Andrew Bolt does this by spamming the audience with an onslaught of questions in his opening sentence when he says “It’s too early to blame the Gillard government… But why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?” In the last sentence “Before the next boat sinks, or after?”

Here, you've got a good sense of your arguements, but i think you've really mashed them together.Try to break up your sentences so you can remina clear, concise and to the point. As for quoting, you don't have to throw in a whole slab. Just select a few and you will get your point across. But i think you've had a typ thing here? Kind of repeated twice

All in all, i think its a good piece. Youv'e got good grasp on evidence etc but i think you should jsut work on your expression...and do you need to add a conclusion? just my thing i guess, if you dnt feel you need it, then dont. Lol, i just feel i have to have one to finish it off

[chrisjb]

his opening sentence when he says “It’s too early to blame the Gillard government… But why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?” In the last sentence “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” Bolt is successful in highlighting that a grim future awaits those who set to the docks to seek asylum in Australia.

Generaly I would say not to use the same quote or part thereof twice. I would have said something like

the last of which is used by Bolt to highlight that a grim future awaits...

in place of

In the last sentence “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” Bolt is successful in highlighting that a grim future awaits...

Not sure if this is a faux pas or not, but I try not to do it and I reckon it looks messy.

A seed of distrust has finally been planted in the minds of the audience and questions of great concern stem from this seed...

I used almost the exact same sentence in a practice essay in english a little while ago and I was told not to use it as it's metaphorical and not formal enough.


One more thing, once agian it doesn't realy matter all that much, but I don't reckon one should ever write that a writer was 'succesful' with the use of a technique. This is just a nitty picky thing that I go on about, but since it is imposible to speak for all readers it is best in my opinion to just say that the writer aims to illicit a response from his readers or that it is likely that readers will respond to his writing in a specific way. But that's not much of a faux pas either.

It was a prety good essay all up. But put in a conclusion I reckon too, just one or two lines makes it a nice little parcel.

[pi]

In addition to what is already been mentioned, you should also aim for a few more words. The aim (from what I have been told) should be 700-850. I think your word count is ~600, so you would have 100 extra words to add, which means more detail could have been covered.

You should also shorten some of your quotes, I found that paragraphs 2 and 3 were overly dominated by larger-than-necessary quotes. Cut them and get to the point.
 

[nacho]

Thanks, taken into account.
Would the conclusion just be a summary of what's already been said?

[Greatness]

For the conclusion i would usually mention how the techniques are effective, whilst linking it back to the topic. (It doesnt have to be very long 2-3 sentences would be suffice imo)

[Ghost!]

Thanks, taken into account.
Would the conclusion just be a summary of what's already been said?

Nope, in your conclusion summaries the writers main points throughout the article and mention the accompanying picture.

[nacho]

thanks, just from reading above, i'd say you'd all give this a 6/10ish?
I forgot the picture because i copied the text onto word, then printed it and left it on my desk.. From the critic i can see i need to be more clear cut and structured (quotes shoudlnt be repeated and shouldnt be too long)
Thanks,

[Water]

In the article “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” published on the 17th of December in the Herald Sun, the writer Andrew Bolt incessantly stresses  Better expression can be adopted. You can contextualize your essay in your first sentence, and introduce your issue in your second sentence. You have written too less and this has made a negative impact on introductionhow the government is responsible for the deaths of those asylum seekers by “recklessly weakening our boat people laws”. He adopts an assertive and somewhat Somewhat is not needed. Its colloquial. irritated tone to make it clear Colloquialism once again that “Labor’s fatal laws” are long overdue for a revision. Andrew Bolt uses his arguments to appeal to the general public in order to make them Awkward expression, the last sentence feels out of place with your introduction. Besides using the "his arguments" you can relate it to his tone realise that the “pious Leftist” government are luring asylum seekers to their demise.

Essential to his cause is to sculpt an image of a “recklessly criminal” government that is reluctant in admitting fault and unwilling to take any actions to mend them Awkward sentence. Are you sure it was "Essential?" It feels awkward and wordy. Word choices to look out for "Take Any" can be shortened to "Take action" , better word choice for mend. Its sound too simplistic. Andrew Bolt does this Again, better wording can be used. by spamming Internet language shouldn't be incorporated into your essay, I actually laughed. the audience with an onslaught of questions onslaught of questions, sounds too mercenary, warlike, and to me, it does not feel the author is bombarding the audience. More to provoke discussion and reflection. in his opening sentence when he says “It’s too early to blame the Gillard government… But why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?” In the last sentence Scrap the last sentence, you already made your point, the reader has read the article. “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” Bolt is successful Don't evaluate, your meant to analyse in highlighting that a grim future awaits those who set to the docks to seek asylum in Australia The two sentences don't link to one another. They seem to be referring to different things. Its feels like there is a big hole.. To further his aim Word expression of defaming the government Bolt repeatedly says “they lie” to incessantly remind his audience how unreliable the government is. Bolt indents to use the audience’s freshly acquired Colloquial, and feels too forced onto the reader. Try evoke, provoke, arouse, invoke,convey. Its is much nicer way and not as strained sceptical views of the government to support him in to demanding that the government revert to the previous laws on asylum seekers.

Andrew Bolt, keeping in regard that members of his audience may be compassionate or have bias views on asylum seekers I feel this a tad too childish. , goes to reveal alarming Too simplistic statistics of the surge of influx of asylum seekers and the current death toll. “from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone… when exactly can we point out that these latest 28 or more people to drown were lured to their deaths – just like up to 170 others – by a government that reckless weakened our boat people laws, despite repeated warning it would lead to just this kind of tragedy?” Successfully filled half the paragraph with quotes. That is a big no No, you want to select a few to convey the effect. The statistic makes the reader aware of the fact that an average of 1 person dies per boat arrival No, that isn't the effect. The examiner wants to know, how it makes the reader feel. What emotions does it stir, how does it work in the author's favor.. To firm pin the blame on the government, for the deaths of asylum seekers it has invited Long sentence, and does not link to your statistics, need to change your sentence so the reader can relate, Andrew Bolt positions the reader to feel that for all those who graciously invite asylum seekers to our shores, many are being lead to their perdition government which is responsible for many deaths, and if no action is taken soon, will be responsible for many more.
 

To further repudiate the government’s laws on boat peopleYou have already used "to" in your previous sentence. It feels repetitive and does not feel as though it is a new paragraph., Bolt quotes Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Collective who states that “If the Australian Government was willing to properly process asylum seekers in Indonesia and resettle successful refugees in Australia, then far fewer people would get on boats to travel to Australia.”Shorten your quote. This goes to highlight that “the government’s soft policies” may be two sided "appears to be two sided" you will need words that make you as a writer appear as confident. If you do opt to choose maybe, find better word choices to make it appear more sophisticated, however this can make your effect become too far complex. It can be good, however people tend to get muddled up in expression.and hold ulterior motives. The audience are left to muse over why the government didn’t process asylum seekers in Indonesia, but instead softened boat people laws Are left to question? is probably better word? don't talk about the asylum seekers. The author is concerned of the policy more so! it is afterall, the root of the problem.. A seed of distrust has finally been planted in the minds of the audience and questions of great concern stem from this seed Split your sentence. Too many things crammed into one., such as perhaps the government wants asylum seekers to have a tougher journey to Australia, and if this is the case, our government is encouraging asylum seekers to risk their lives. With this,Weak. Andrew Bolt is successful in sculpting an image of a lying  and reckless Lying is too simplistic choice of a word. government which is responsible for many deaths , and if no action is taken soon, will be responsible for many more.



Overall: You have shown to demonstrate a solid understanding of the techniques presented in the article. However, had failed to explore it deeper, analytically in its effect to the reader or how it positions the article in x y z way. Though, you had attempted to explore, it is far too simplistic. The examiner wants to know how the reader is moved by the article, how the article appears in the eyes of the reader and the effect of the technique as a whole. I applaud your effort in your first language analysis in the year. It is a very good attempt, but more work can be done in expression and word choices. Perhaps prior to writing your language analysis article, you should reflect, jot or list down the techniques and how its effects etc..etc.. There are many language analysis guides and Im sure they will prove invalueable to you. Good luck!

Score: 5-5.5/10