LA: Greyhound racing [SAC t-minus 24 hours!]

[99.90 pls]

Hi AN! Just wanted to thank everyone for the amazing advice and help I've been given over the past week for LA. Huge shout-out to Zezima. for correcting my LA and Literally Lauren for the tip to write "tall and skinny" - I've gone from 600 words an hour to 900 using that tip!

Anyway, I've finally produced a LA (in 100 minutes) which I'm actually happy with - the first one I've written where I feel like I've actually covered the criteria. But obviously, there'll be flaws to it so if anyone could give some comments, I'd be super thankful. I've got a SAC in less than 24 hours so any help will be appreciated! Thank you! (.doc attached for those who prefer that)

Text 1 (only if you feel like it)
Text 2 (as above)
Text 3 (ditto)


The recent revelation that live animals are being used as bait in greyhound racing has provoked intense debate regarding the humanity of such practices, as well as the legitimacy of greyhound racing as a “sport”. The editorial, 'Greyhound racing and live baiting: the sport of grubs' (The Age, 18/2/15) contends that greyhound racing is a cruel practice which should be outlawed in Australia. 'This barbarity shames us all' is an editorial by Herald Sun (18/2/15) which argues that the practice of 'live baiting' is inhumane and barbaric. Mark Knight's cartoon (Herald Sun, 22/2/15) is a facetious depiction of “possums and piglets” riding greyhounds, suggesting that there is no humane way of using these animals in greyhound racing.

The Age begins by personifying the animals used as live bait. The emphatic use of “spine and intestines” is reminiscent of human organs, while “they scream for their lives” is a uniquely human reaction in the face of extreme danger. By humanising these animals, the perceived cruelty and inhumanity is amplified, engendering readers' sympathy for these victims and fury towards the perpetrators. This grotesque humanisation is further developed through “the creatures we share the earth with”, suggesting that they are equal with humans and thus, to the reader, their “drowning” and “hanging” is just as evil and terrifying as a human suffering the same torture. The editorial proceeds to attack those involved in the sport in a highly condemnatory tone, using “gutless” and “cheats” to insinuate to the reader that they are morally bankrupt. This is complemented by “amusement”, which implies that a sadistic pleasure is being derived from this cruelty, compelling the reader to empathise with The Age's disgust for the perpetrators. The Age also makes an appeal to the reader's innate desire to belong by answering the rhetorical question “do you think Australians would be supporting that?” with an authoritative “of course not.” This insinuates that those who do not concur are not considered “Australian”, encouraging the readers to agree lest they be alienated as an outsider. Finally, The Age urges the reader to act against this “cruelty” through the use of “bookies say a dog is good chance of winning because it's had a kill”; the normalisation of murder here evokes feelings of trepidation and horror in the reader by suggesting that murder has become accepted and commonplace. Thus, to the reader, such an obvious distortion of morality must be rectified immediately, lest humans, as The Age's conclusion warns, become “[monsters]”.

Similarly to The Age, Herald Sun begins by denying greyhound racing as a “sport” by means of the quotation marks around the word, which suggest a dubious scepticism as to its legitimacy. It also, like The Age, humanises the “piglets”, “possums” and “rabbits” by labelling them by name as opposed to just using “bait” or “animals”, adding an additional dimension of humanity to these creatures. As a result, the reader is inclined to perceive the killing of these animals as akin to the murder of a human, complete with “blood” and an eerily human “crying”. This then positions readers to view the practices of the perpetrators as illegal, immoral to the highest extent and “[shameful]”, as the tile affirms. Shifting to a critical tone not dissimilar to that of The Age, Herald Sun proceeds to portray these perpetrators as “cruel men”, which contrasts starkly with The Age's use of “blokes”; while the latter, “blokes”, connotes immaturity and a sense of morality which is not fully developed, the former use of “men” suggests maturity and age, powerfully accentuating the immorality perceived – while “blokes” could plead ignorance, “men” cannot. Their world view is solidified after years of experience. As such, their “[cruelty]” is inexcusable and to the reader, it implies a fundamentally ingrained moral bankruptcy, engendering intense hatred for these “[barbarians]”. This “cruel [man]” image is then compounded as The Age proceeds to assert that they have temporally “degraded” to “times when the life of animals was... used and abused”, conjuring the notion that they are primal, archaic and uncivilised; thus, it positions the reader to postulate that they do not have a place in society. Instead. They must be alienated and “named and shamed” for their guilt, which The Age encourages by referring to the perpetrators as “this” and “those”, excluding them from humanity permanently.

Although Knight's cartoon lacks the immensely heavy rhetoric of The Age and Herald Sun's editorials, it advocates a similar contention: that “possums and piglets” do not belong on the greyhound race track. Similar to the former two articles, it humanises “possums and piglets” through explicit naming; its visual nature, however, allows it to humanise to a greater extent by portraying the animals in the human role of a jockey. This increases the reader's sensitivity towards them, allowing for stronger empathy, sympathy and sensitivity for their pain. The facetious caption: “the humane use” implies that there is in fact no “humane use” of the “[possum]” and “[piglet]” in greyhound racing, since the notion of the two animals riding the compliant greyhounds is absurd and laughable. In conjunction, the visual elements synergise to emphasise the underlying contention that “piglets” and “possums” do not belong in “greyhound racing”.

As the two editorials do not have the advantage of a visual's ability to immediately and clearly convey flippancy, they employ a combination of heavy rhetoric and accusatory admonishment to angle the reader alongside their viewpoint. Contrarily, Knight's cartoon is able to establish rapport and advocate its underlying contention instantly and humorously, strengthening its impact by making a profound emotive connection to the reader's consciousness.

[vobinhood]

Hey, great work in writing so many practice essays for your SAC!

The following is what I've noticed:
- "Similarly to The Age," should just become "Similar to the Age," or "Similarly,"
- I suggest delving deeper into the visual elements of the cartoon. Use metalanguage! For example, you could say that Knight illustrates in point of view in a mocking tone by the dotted and starry patterns on the animals' jockey costumes. Or make note of the facial expressions of the dogs, what does that signify?
- I feel like the final body paragraph is missing one last positioning statement. After you discuss the caption you immediately restate the writer's contention. However by discussing the cartoonist's implications in the caption, isn't that opening more opportunity for analysis? Thus I feel like you shouldn't state the caption's implications and leave it at that, but close it off with a positing statement, discussing the intended effect on readership.
- For conclusions, my teacher tells me to recapitulate the contention of all three pieces then state which was most effective in carrying across its point of view. Something to think about! But if your teachers said otherwise then don't worry about this!
- For the conclusion again, try to be more specific to the topic at hand. For example, when you state "viewpoint", actually state what that viewpoint is. E.g. "...sway the reader to view greyhound racing in a negative light". The conclusion you've written could be used for many comparative analyses (apart from the names).
- I feel like the structure of the first two paragraphs could be improved. Maybe try going for a similar approach to what you had with the visual? Beginning with the contention and tone, stating a supporting argument, notable language used to support this and positioning statements. Then repeat.

Hopefully I didn't post this too late! And good luck!

[M_BONG]

(Sorry just got home, so probably a bit late). It's really good - the comparative elements are there, your analysis is interesting, deep and spot on in most places and I'm not saying this simply because your SAC is tomorrow. The structure for the purposes of this task (3 articles!!) is good considering you have to be very selective with what you write.

 I do agree with vobinhood on the comment about spending a little more time on the visual but that's probably a little nit-picky because overall you are handling the task in this piece quite well. Um, I don't think there's much you could foreseeably change at this stage (obviously).

Good luck - now it's just time to keep an equilibrium of the minds for the SAC!

[99.90 pls]

Hey, great work in writing so many practice essays for your SAC!

The following is what I've noticed:
- "Similarly to The Age," should just become "Similar to the Age," or "Similarly,"
- I suggest delving deeper into the visual elements of the cartoon. Use metalanguage! For example, you could say that Knight illustrates in point of view in a mocking tone by the dotted and starry patterns on the animals' jockey costumes. Or make note of the facial expressions of the dogs, what does that signify?
- I feel like the final body paragraph is missing one last positioning statement. After you discuss the caption you immediately restate the writer's contention. However by discussing the cartoonist's implications in the caption, isn't that opening more opportunity for analysis? Thus I feel like you shouldn't state the caption's implications and leave it at that, but close it off with a positing statement, discussing the intended effect on readership.
- For conclusions, my teacher tells me to recapitulate the contention of all three pieces then state which was most effective in carrying across its point of view. Something to think about! But if your teachers said otherwise then don't worry about this!
- For the conclusion again, try to be more specific to the topic at hand. For example, when you state "viewpoint", actually state what that viewpoint is. E.g. "...sway the reader to view greyhound racing in a negative light". The conclusion you've written could be used for many comparative analyses (apart from the names).
- I feel like the structure of the first two paragraphs could be improved. Maybe try going for a similar approach to what you had with the visual? Beginning with the contention and tone, stating a supporting argument, notable language used to support this and positioning statements. Then repeat.

Hopefully I didn't post this too late! And good luck!

Thanks! I'm about to write a final practice SAC now so I'll definitely take most of those pointers on board, particularly the stuff about cartoons. In hindsight, I finished with 5 minutes to spare so there was definitely time for a better analysis of the cartoon.

(Sorry just got home, so probably a bit late). It's really good - the comparative elements are there, your analysis is interesting, deep and spot on in most places and I'm not saying this simply because your SAC is tomorrow. The structure for the purposes of this task (3 articles!!) is good considering you have to be very selective with what you write.

 I do agree with vobinhood on the comment about spending a little more time on the visual but that's probably a little nit-picky because overall you are handling the task in this piece quite well. Um, I don't think there's much you could foreseeably change at this stage (obviously).

Good luck - now it's just time to keep an equilibrium of the minds for the SAC!

Thank you Zezima! I appreciate all the help you've given me, it's helped me improve dramatically over the long weekend

Last question though (for anyone): should I allocate 5 minutes to proof reading or is that a waste of time which could be better served for deeper analysis? When I spend my last 5 minutes proof reading, I generally only pick up a few expression errors here or there.