[2016 LA Club] Week 5

[literally lauren]

Odd numbered week, so I'm back again

This time we've got a pretty straightforward piece based on the gang violence that happened in the city a little while ago.

Background: On Saturday the 12th of March, police were called to deal with incidents in Melbourne's CBD when several members of various gangs were seen causing a disturbance. There were a few physical altercations, and instances of gang members terrorising members of the public using chairs from a nearby cafe as weapons to fight amongst themselves and with police. This prompted strong responses from the state government as well as concerned members of the public - one of whom had their Letter to the Editor published in The Age, shown below.


It is time to draw a line in the sand

What occurred on Saturday must never be repeated. Our society must demand that families can enjoy our city without fear. Brawling, marauding mobs have no place here. We need strong, decisive action from government, which must support law enforcement to stamp out this abhorrent behaviour. If offenders are found to have breached laws in relation to good character, tough action such as deportation must be taken. The line in the sand must be drawn and our expectations of decency and respect be made clear.

- Peter O'Malley, Carlton North


This one's pretty short and pithy so it'll be a case of quality > quantity this week; even posting a couple of sentences would suffice, so feel free to jump in. Analysing a single sentence every week would be more helpful to you than doing nothing at all, and with Language Analysis starting to fall by the wayside for a lot of students around the state, you'll be at a huge advantage come exam time if you've been continually refining your skills.

[HopefulLawStudent]

In his scathing letter to the editor, Carlton North resident Peter O’Malley establishes delinquency such as that observed on March 12, 2016 must be eradicated. His reference to the culpable perpetrators as “brawling, marauding mobs” vilifies this group, connoting they were responsible acts of brutality. That O’Malley should viciously render these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were. This manoeuvres the audience of Victorian readers to frankly condemn these youths and their actions, viewing them with antipathy and disdain for having partaken in what they perceive to be inhumane behaviour which purportedly went against the behaviour they would expect from a sensible human being. The Carlton North resident’s use of the inclusive “our” positions the audience to accept responsibility and feel as though they must personally endorse and take action to ensure the events of March 12 were not repeated. That he should employ pithy sentences throughout his letter engenders a sense of exigency within the reader, suggesting to take action alone is not enough; it must be taken immediately to ensure these incidents did not become frequent occurrences.

For the first time since Week 1, I'm officially up to date and (hopefully) haven't accidentally posted this anonymously without meaning to. 

I would totally love it if you could include a mark out of 10?

[Anonymous]

eek!

O'Malley states that "it is time", implying that we have already waited for too long for action. This creates a sense of urgency regarding the issue and sways the reader to believe that it is already too late. O'Malley complements this by asserting that it "must never be repeated", intended to demonstrate that firm action is the only way to deal with the situation.  O'Malley avoids describing the incident by describing it as "what occurred on Saturday". By doing so O'Malley implies that the occurrence was too disturbing or taboo to mention, thus heightening the portrayed extremity of the violence.

O'Malley goes on to "demand" that "families" should be able to "enjoy our city without fear". The appeal to Victorian's safety is intended to lead the reader to feel aggrieved and subsequently supporting his "demand" for action. O'Malley further emphasises the fear by describing them as "brawling, marauding mobs". The loaded words show the intent of the culprits to attack viciously and lead the reader to believe that it is not just a one-off event

O'Malley calls to the government by urging for "strong, decisive action". This suggests that the action that the government has taken so far has been weak and indecisive. By comparison, O'Malley presents himself as "strong" and "decisive" by saturating his letter with the word "must". He intends to make the reader believe that O'Malley is the individual who is representing Victorian's needs where the government is not.

[HopefulLawStudent]

I don't claim to know what I'm doing when it comes to giving feedback but I've been reassured that if I screw up Lauren, Heidi or someone will correct me.

O'Malley states that "it is time", implying that we have already waited for too long for action. This creates a sense of urgency regarding the issue and sways the reader to believe that it is already too late. This sentence just repeats what the first sentence said but with more words. You could probably condense the last two sentences into one sentence. O'Malley complements this by asserting that it "must never be repeated", this is intended to demonstrate This bit's a little clunky imo which is why I added a "this is" in front of it in the hopes of making it sound less clunkythat firm action is the only way to deal with the situation.  O'Malley You have a bit of a formulaic response... Where basically you go "O'Malley does x." over and over again. Repetition of this sort even in the best essay will affect the mark a little probably. avoids describing the incident by describing it as "what occurred on Saturday". By doing so O'Malley implies that the occurrence was too disturbing or taboo to mention, thus heightening the portrayed extremity of the violence.

Side note to Lauren/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to talk about how the author omits to say whatever? Anon's analysis of what he doesn't say is v. good but I thought we could only analyse what was on the page? Obviously, I can't do it for my LA SAC because my school's English faculty hate it when students talk about omissions BUT could I analyse the significance of an omission in the exam?

O'Malley goes on to "demand" that "families" should be able to "enjoy our city without fear". The appeal to Victorian's safety is intended to lead the reader to feel aggrieved and subsequently supporting his "demand" for action. O'Malley further emphasises the fear by describing them as "brawling, marauding mobs". The loaded iffy about this word choice but it might just be me words show the intent of the culprits to attack viciously and lead the reader to believe that it is not just a one-off event I don't get how you've jumped from "attack viciously" to "believe that it is not just a one-off event". Perhaps you need to make a more obvious connection and elaborate more on this idea?

O'Malley calls to the government by urging for "strong, decisive action". This suggests that the action that the government has taken so far has been weak and indecisive. By comparison, O'Malley presents himself as "strong" and "decisive" by saturating I don't think you've used "saturating" correctly... his letter with the word "must". He intends to make the reader believe that O'Malley is the individual who is representing Victorian's needs where the government is not. So?

Overall, some v. good analysis. A lot of the issues I was pointing out was just minor stuff and easily fixed imo. Good job.

[Anonymous]

In his letter to the editor, Peter O'Malley, a Carlton North tenant urges the victorian society to take an immediate action against the absurd and appalling behaviour displayed on Saturday, 12th March 2016. O'Malley uses the word 'never' to insinuate the strong objection against the situation on Saturday. Hence, it coerces the reader to also feel the same towards the mobs. The repetitive word 'must' infers the obligation upon the society to create an environment 'without fear'. The inclusive terms such as 'we and our', O'Malley is talking on behalf of the community and appeals to the reader's sense of guilt and thus, they may take similar action. The negative connotation associated with the mobs such as, 'brawling [and] marauding', O'Malley is conveying that the mobs are a destruction in the society, which attempts to alarm the reader of what they might do next. The word 'need' sparks a dire plight in the urgency and in turn, encourages the reader to promote positive changes for their safety. O'Malley supports his contention with the vision of 'good character' and 'tough actions' to be the alteration of the behaviour. This aim seeks the reader to respect and trust O'Malley's purpose of working together. The evocative tone stimulates the reader to be concerned about their livelihood and thus, may 'support the law enforcement' and contribute to minimising the 'abhorrent behaviour'.

[HopefulLawStudent]

In his letter to the editor, Peter O'Malley, a Carlton North tenant Personally iffy about this word usage... but that may just be me urges the victorian society Refer to my previous comment to take an immediate action against the absurd and appalling behaviour LA has to be objective. Wouldn't this be considered your personal assessment of that incident since you don't directly mention this is the writer's view... displayed on Saturday, 12th March 2016. O'Malley uses the word 'never' to insinuate the strong objection against the situation on Saturday. Hence, it coerces the reader to also feel the same towards the mobs. The repetitive word 'must' infers You've used this word wrong the obligation upon the society to create an environment 'without fear'. This sentence makes no sense to me but that may be because you used "infers" wrong. TBy using the inclusive terms such as 'we and our', O'Malley is talking on behalf of the community and appeals to the reader's sense of guiltI don't get the connection between "talking on behalf of the community" and "appeals to the reader's sense of guilt" and thus, they may take similar action. The negative connotation Isn't this a big LA no, no? Saying "negative connotation"? My English teacher chewed me out for it last year and I've been too scared to chuck an adjective in front of "connotation" ever since. associated with the mobs such as, 'brawling [and] marauding', O'Malley is conveying that the mobs are a destruction in the society, which attempts to alarm the reader of what they might do next. The word 'need' sparks a dire plight in the urgency and in turn, encourages the reader to promote positive changes for their safety. O'Malley supports his contention with the vision of 'good character' and 'tough actions' to be the alteration of the behaviour. It might be my own internal grammar or the fact that I've had only 4-5 hours of sleep and am therefore grumpier and not as sharp as I normally am but this sentence doesn't make sense to me...This aim seeks ?the reader to respect and trust O'Malley's purpose of working together. The evocative Have you used this word wrong?tone stimulates I love this word so much... the reader to be concerned about their livelihood Wait whaaaat? What livelihood? Isn't this about kids brawling in Melbourne CBD? How does this relate to the reader's livelihood? Not saying it's wrong, just that you maybe need to explain your point more. and thus, may 'support the law enforcement' and contribute to minimising the 'abhorrent behaviour'.Side note to Lauren/Heidi/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to just name-drop quotes and throw them in without analysis like anon has done here?

Use " and not ' when quoting.

Don't be disheartened. I've only picked out the negative because I'm sleep deprived and I just wanted to try my hand at giving you some feedback. You give some really interesting insights and there's some solid analysis going on. I was just being picky.

In hindsight, I may have been a bit savage. I probably should have gotten some more sleep... or a coffee... before I went and gave feedback.

[HopefulLawStudent]

As always, if I screwed up, someone correct me, yeah?

[FallingStar]

In his scathing Good use of tone letter to the editor, Carlton North resident Peter O’Malley establishes delinquency such as that observed on March 12, 2016 must be eradicated. His reference to the culpable perpetrators as “brawling, marauding mobs” vilifies this group, connoting they were responsible acts of brutality. That O’Malley should viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were. This manoeuvres the audience of Victorian readers to frankly condemn these youths and their actions, viewing them with antipathy and disdain for having partaken in what they perceive to be inhumane behaviour which purportedly went against the behaviour they would expect from a sensible human being Sentence getting a bit long here. The Carlton North You may be better off just using O'Malley resident’s use of the inclusive “our” positions the audience to accept responsibility and leading them to feel as though they must personally endorse and take action to ensure the events of March 12 were not repeatedI think this is one event, not several. That he should employ pithy sentences throughout his letter engenders a sense of exigency within the reader, suggesting to take action alone is not enough; it must be taken immediately to ensure these incidents did not become frequent occurrences.

For the first time since Week 1, I'm officially up to date and (hopefully) haven't accidentally posted this anonymously without meaning to. 

I would totally love it if you could include a mark out of 10?

Firstly, may I disclose that I am not particularly comfortable giving marks out of 10. However, I will give you the best feedback I can.
Well done for spotting the tone on the get go. Since it have mentioned, the effect of the tone needs to be analysed too. There were a few grammatical and expression errors (corrections in bold, comments in purple). Other than that, you have stated the effects quite well, and analysed in detail as well. This is quite a high level, as many students just technique and example, and just mention the effect (without explaining it in detail). (Personally, I got in told off by a tutor for doing it myself)

[HopefulLawStudent]

Firstly, may I disclose that I am not particularly comfortable giving marks out of 10. However, I will give you the best feedback I can.
Well done for spotting the tone on the get go. Since it have mentioned, the effect of the tone needs to be analysed too. There were a few grammatical and expression errors (corrections in bold, comments in purple). Other than that, you have stated the effects quite well, and analysed in detail as well. This is quite a high level, as many students just technique and example, and just mention the effect (without explaining it in detail). (Personally, I got in told off by a tutor for doing it myself)

RE: The marks out of 10 thing. That was directed more at Lauren not other students. I probably should have been clearer. It's my fault.

Thank you so much for having a go at giving feedback. I personally find it really fun (don't judge I'm weird like that) but I know a lot of kids hate it/don't like putting themselves up like that. So good on you for giving it a go.

Some of your corrections/feedback doesn't make sense to me, however. I'm hoping you can explain/elaborate further?
1. Why'd you cross off "That" and "should"?
2. Why would I "be better off just using O'Malley"?
3. Yes, this was one event, not several, but was that not the point? Doesn't the writer want to prompt the reader to act so as to ensure the March 12 continues to be a single event and is not repeated?

[literally lauren]

That O’Malley should viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were.

There are two variations you could have here. Your original sentence is fine, but the structure of 'That the author does X demonstrates Y' is a thing that a lot of people wouldn't use because of their internal grammatical systems. It's technically fine and I've used it before, but it can sound a bit odd sometimes, and you don't want to overuse it because it's a very noticeable kind of structure.

eg. if you saw two guys on a train wearing jeans and black hoodies, you wouldn't think twice, but if you  saw two guys wearing purple and orange jester hats with jingly bells and slippers shaped like cow heads, your brain would probably register that repetition. Reusing basic sentence types is like wearing jeans and hoodies, but the 'that X showcases Y' thing is more like a jester hat + cow slipper combination, so just be cautious with it.

The alternative, which Falling Star has used, would be to say 'O’Malley viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifying how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were' which is also fine.

Regarding event/events: this kind of gets into distinctions between whether a collection of related occurrences count as one 'event' or a series of 'events' (ie. if you played tennis and basketball after school last week, did you play 'sport' or 'sports?') It's pretty open to interpretation as both are grammatical - by instinct I'd go with the plural and say 'the events should not be repeated,' but 'event' is possibly more technically accurate in this instance. I wouldn't worry about it though; when we're only dealing with 200 word analyses it's easy to get into semantic quibbles, but when teachers and assessors are reading through hundreds of thousand-word responses, they just breeze through this stuff and ignore anything that isn't apparent on a first skim-read, hence why clarity is so important.

Re: mark out of ten, I have consulted my magic 8 ball and concluded that this is a 9.17459/10. But again, this is maybe a fifth of what you would realistically write in an exam, and no essay maintains the exact same numerical level of quality throughout. Typically, an essay would have certain sections worthy of a high mark and others of a low mark, so this excerpt might sit at a 9/10 level, but it could either be a high point or a low point depending on the rest of your discussion. That's why holistic marks are a bit hard to apply here since writing at a 7/10 standard for tasks like this doesn't necessarily mean you'll be scoring exactly 7/10 in full practice essays. It's probably more helpful to think of things in terms of 'my analysis is at a 9/10 standard, but my expression is at a 6/10' or something like that. If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay

[HopefulLawStudent]

Oooooh. Gotcha. Good ol' "that" screwed me over again. I'll try and tone it down a bit and go with more basic sentence structures. See how that works.

I get what you mean about the marking thing. I think generally (having done this LA club thing for a few weeks) my problem is not so much the analysis but more getting it down on paper in a way that makes sense and is grammatically correct. It's clearly a problem that won't solve itself so I think I'll focus on that for a while until I have that down pat.

PS: What do you mean by "If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay"?

[literally lauren]

PS: What do you mean by "If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay"?

Basically break down your essay into 'qualitative' or word-based components like 'amount/variation of metalanguage used,' 'overall coverage of the material,' 'linking between sentences' etc. and then you can assign/request numerical scores out of 10 for those components. So if there's something in particular that you can't wrap your head around, just let us know (eg. 'could someone give me a score for my discussion of tone?') if you really need a quantitative indication. Ultimately the explanations will probably be of more benefit though

[HopefulLawStudent]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Marmalade]

In a direct, almost domineering tone, O’Malley asserts that ‘brawling, marauding mobs’ should be ‘stamped out’. These descriptives vilify the delinquents involved as they imply barbaric behaviour from the offenders, unsuitable to a functioning member of society.  As such, the audience galvanized to deter such behaviour that fails ‘expectations of decency and respect’, in order to reduce such situations from reoccurring in order to maintain the safety of the city. The high modality of the word ‘must’ repeated constantly throughout the letter also clearly defines to readers the urgency of the issue, thus substantiating the responsibility of readers as a part of ‘our society’ to combat it, or else risk shirking such duties. The author further extrapolates on this point by underscoring the currently lackluster, weak action of the government, insinuated by O’Malley’s demands for more ‘strong decisive action’ from the party. This subverts the standing of the government in the public’s point of view, whereby compelling the former to work towards a change to dispel these accusations, while simultaneously spurring the latter to act in order to make up for such a disappointing performance from their government so far in response to the disturbances caused by gangs in the city.

[heids]

In a direct, almost domineering tone precisely what it is! , O’Malley asserts that ‘brawling, marauding mobs’ should be ‘stamped out’. These descriptives vilify the delinquents involved as they imply barbaric behaviour from the offenders, unsuitable to a functioning member of society. so how do these words – ‘brawling’ and ‘mob’ – make us feel about the people in particular?  How is he trying to make us view the people involved?  And why does he want us to see them that way?  Try to be as specific as possible! As such, the audience galvanized to deter such behaviour that fails ‘expectations of decency and respect’, in order to reduce such situations from reoccurring in order to maintain the safety of the city. The high modality of the word ‘must’ repeated constantly throughout the letter also clearly defines to readers the urgency of the issue, thus substantiating the responsibility of readers as a part of ‘our society’ to combat it, or else risk shirking such duties. The author further extrapolates on this point by underscoring the currently lackluster, weak action of the government, insinuated by O’Malley’s demands for more ‘strong decisive action’ from the party rearranging this could help clarify it: By demanding ‘strong decisive action’, O’Malley further underscores the currently lacklustre, weak action of the government.  . This subverts the standing of the government in the public’s point of view, whereby thereby compelling the former to work towards a change to dispel these accusations, while simultaneously spurring the latter to act in order to make up for such a disappointing performance from their government so far in response to the disturbances caused by gangs in the city. that’s a pretty long/complex sentence that you could chop up.  Also, what can the public actually do about it?  Just ‘encourages people to act on it’ isn’t really specific enough about how it makes them FEEL (specifically) and what it encourages them specifically to do.  In fact: what do you think the author is actually trying to achieve from writing this?  Think about it.
 

Overall – pretty solid, no jokes.  With a few little slips, you write nicely, and you’re good and keeping focusing on how it influences the audience.

You could probably practice being more specific, though, about how certain WORDS specifically influence the audience.  What particular feelings to they aim to evoke?  How do they aim to change how the audience sees [the rioters, the government, society, etc.]?  And how do those particular words actually create those feelings?  Think of examiners as five-year-olds… if you don’t explain every step of the way to them, they’ll get lost.  You need to fill in the gaps so they don’t have any questions.   See the gaps here? This phrase makes the audience want to take action. <--- like… how does it do that!?  I don’t believe you till you prove it to me by explaining every step of the way!

Does that make sense?  Let me know if you need clarification

Side note to Lauren/Heidi/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to just name-drop quotes and throw them in without analysis like anon has done here?

Generally, I reckon you should try to avoid it, because obviously the point of language analysis is... analysis.  They're not likely to actively 'take off' marks for it, but it can just leave a bad taste in an examiner's mouth and take away your time from actually analysing.  So use sparingly.
[/quote]