[2016 LA Club] Week 6

[heids]

This short letter made me laugh so much that I couldn't wait to share it.  Enjoy analysing - you've got the holidays free to focus on this!

Beacon of beauty

I want to mourn the loss of a valued neighbour. A splendid Norfolk Island pine near my home was felled recently, hopefully not preparatory to another house demolition. Landmark, absorber of carbon dioxide, avian refuge, spender of shade, beacon of beauty, balm for urban stress – gone. William Blake said it: "The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing which stands in the way". It is time for a moratorium on removing significant urban trees.

- Peter Rechner, Essendon

[Anonymous]

Peter Rechner's short letter comically highlights trees as his "valued neighbour[s ]". This description has connotations of friendliness, care, and comfort, which establish Rechner's position that trees are much more valuable than they appear to be. This forces disagreeing readers to reconsider the importance of something that they would regularly see as "... a green thing which stands in the way" of them building a man-made establishment.

The writer marvels at a small list of beneficial purposes for trees, that some readers may overlook: "absorber of carbon dioxide", "spender of shade", "beacon of beauty", "balm for urban stress", also calling for a "moratorium on removing significant urban trees". Through sprinkling his opinion with hilarity, the writer establishes a friendly relationship with readers that do not appreciate the value of trees, which may have the effect of readers agreeing with Rechner's gentle opinion.

Hi, I'd like to specifically get some good feedback on my connotative analysis - from anybody - as I've just read the Connotative Analysis Guide and I'm looking to develop this for use in my essays.

[Anonymous]

Not sure why my post came with lines through it though   

[HopefulLawStudent]

It's because you have [  s  ] there (but without the spaces I put in). A mod or someone will probably fix it up for you at some stage.

[Anonymous]

Peter Rechner's short letter comically highlights trees as his "valued neighbour[s ]". This description has connotations of friendliness, care, and comfort, which establish Rechner's position that trees are much more valuable than they appear to be. This forces disagreeing readers to reconsider the importance of something that they would regularly see as "... a green thing which stands in the way" of them building a man-made establishment.

The writer marvels at a small list of beneficial purposes for trees, that some readers may overlook: "absorber of carbon dioxide", "spender of shade", "beacon of beauty", "balm for urban stress", also calling for a "moratorium on removing significant urban trees". Through sprinkling his opinion with hilarity, the writer establishes a friendly relationship with readers that do not appreciate the value of trees, which may have the effect of readers agreeing with Rechner's gentle opinion.

You seem to have addressed what the connotation of the words involved, and stated the effect. Firstly, the effect needs to be stated in more detail though. Also, you have been too certain about what effect it has son the readers. to combat this situation, make sure you use the words may, could, can instead of directly saying that it will.

In terms of the effect, you will need to write more detail on it. Also, consider the cumulative effects of persuasive language. It is not just one technique that persuades the readers, but a number of techniques combined that does so. This means that you could also analyse the cumulative effects of persuasive language in the essay.

All in all, the effects are well spotted but there needs to be more detail, in terms of how the connotation is used to persuade people.

[FallingStar]

Above one was me. Forgot to tick the box. (I guess we all made that mistake) 

[FallingStar]

Okay. My Piece now. A bit long though

Rechner argues that a tree near his home is valued for its beauty, therefore presenting its loss as pitiful. He lists praise the Norfolk Island pine tree, calling it "avian refuge," "beacon of beauty" and "landmark." These words have a positive connotation with an extraordinarily high aesthetic value, allowing some readers to be in awe of the tree described. Other readers may not appreciate aesthetics very easily. A piece of writing that focus on the beauty such as Rechner's letter may detract this group of readers from his point of view, making it unlikely to for these readers to be persuaded. These readers however, are not of the writer's target audience as he appears to aim the piece at the readers who like the beauty of nature. In a disappointed tone, Recher concludes this list with the word "gone."  The rapid tonal shift within one sentence may agitate the readers, positioning them to be shocked at the tree's disappearance. Many readers may already be encouraged to value the tree for its beauty. Having that beauty taken away could very much upset these readers, convincing them that the loss of the tree as a pity. Readers who does not appreciate beauty very much would not be neither be convinced by the list, nor would they be convinced by the conclusion of the list. It may actually further denigrate them to become rather careless about the trees the writer clearly write about. Following the list, there is a quotation which describes trees that "move some tears of joy" is "a green thing which stands in the way." The juxtaposition of the two viewpoints shows the two contrasting perspectives of the tree. Since the writer has focused mostly on the former viewpoint, the letter viewpoint can be seemed to be insignificant. Since the quote is from a famous poet, it is likely to be trusted amongst people who like literature appealing to their sense of beauty and excellence as well. As they are likely to appreciate William Blake's poems, they are likely to appreciate the tree as well, from Blake's point of view. Rechner's arguments of the tree's aesthetic values can be convincing the readers that a significant tree that is lost in the neighbourhood should be mourned.

[literally lauren]

Not sure why my post came with lines through it though   

All fixed! It's an unfortunate overlap between the forum code that puts a strikethrough anything after [s ] + the fact that when you're modifying quotes, you often need to add an 's' to have things make sense

I'll pop by later this week to take care of any pieces that haven't been looked over

[HopefulLawStudent]

In a melancholy and solemn manner, Essendon resident Peter Rechner comically eulogises the removal of a pine in his area. Describing it as a “valued neighbour”, the writer personifies the tree and thereby accentuates its significance to the surrounding area. To this end, he insinuates that the loss suffered by the community following this removal was akin to the loss of a much-loved neighbour. The profundity of this loss, Rechner further highlights by juxtaposing his enumerations of all the contributions the tree had purportedly made to the community in its lifetime as an “avian refuge… [and] balm for urban stress” with the abruptness of his concise assessment it was “gone”. His use of the term “refuge” and “balm” connote the tree’s contributions were all peaceful and in the best interests of the readership. This therefore validates Rechner’s assessment that the felling of the tree had greatly devastated the surrounding community. The inclusion of a quote from poet William Blake indicates that there are two different prevailing perceptions of trees – some individuals are “move[d]… to tears of joy” while others regard these plants as nothing more than a “thing which stands in the way.” Appealing to his audience of converted environmentalists, Rechner elicits their outrage that the value of a tree could be as undervalued as Blake’s comment suggests.

Ending his letter to the editor with a succinct and firm avowal that “it is time”, Rechner manoeuvres his audience to perceive urgent action was required to save other trees from meeting the same fate as the “splendid Norfolk Island pine” near his place of residence. His reference to “time” suggests there is only a limited timeframe in which the audience can act to ensure the safety of future trees; it insinuates that to hesitate and thereby delay action would be detrimental to the environment and to other communities who may, in that period of time, be devastated in a similar fashion to his community following the felling of the “Norfolk Island pine” near his area. Thus, the writer galvanises the reader to actively and urgently petition for an end to the practice of felling “significant… trees.”

[Anonymous]

The unfortunate loss of a Norfolk Island pine caused tears in the eyes of Peter Rechner. In his letter, "Beacon of Beauty", Rechner draws the attention of the reader to the removal of urban trees. His personification to the tree as his 'valued neighbour' attempts the reader to view the tree as living things and may change their perception to preserve the environment. He connotes the tree as a 'landmark, absorber of carbon dioxide, avian refuge, spender of shade, beacon of beauty.' This description positions the reader to see the benefits the tree provides us and that encourages the reader to be potentially grateful for the presence of the tree and feel blessed. Complimenting his opinion, he quotes a well-known poet figure, William Black, who suggests how some people see the tree as 'tears of joy' and for others, the tree is 'a green thing which stands in the way'. Rechner evokes the reader that might think of the tree as an obstacle to be ashamed for thinking trees is merely nothing when it is a provider. His conclusion of 'it is time' suggests that now is the time to get our acts together and stop the cutting of urban trees. Rechner motivates the reader to care about their trees and environment and put a halt in the cutting of urban trees.

[HopefulLawStudent]

The unfortunate not very subjective? loss of a Norfolk Island pine caused tears in the eyes of Peter Rechner. So? What was the point of that sentence? What are you trying to say/analyse/whatever? In his letter, "Beacon of Beauty", Rechner draws the attention of the reader to the removal of urban trees. His personification to the tree as his 'valued neighbour' Use double quotations (") not single quotations when quoting. attempts the reader doesn't make sense? Missing word maybe? to view the tree as living things and may Assume the writer is successful in "persuading" the reader. Always. change their perception to preserve the environment. He connotes You've used this word wrong. the tree as a 'landmark, absorber of carbon dioxide, avian refuge, spender of shade, beacon of beauty.' This description positions the reader to see the benefits the tree provides us and that encourages the reader to be potentially grateful for the presence of the tree and feel blessed Huh?. Complimenting his opinion, I think you mean to use the homophone "complement"? he quotes a poet figure, William Black, who suggests how some people see the tree as 'tears of joy' Don't think that's quite what Black meant... and for others, the tree is 'a green thing which stands in the way'. Clumsy. Consider changing the end of the sentence to something like "that while the tree may move some to "tears", for others it is just a "green thing which stands in the way." Rechner evokes wrong word usage. the reader that might think of the tree as an obstacle to be ashamed for thinking trees is merely nothing when it is a provider. You need to simplify the sentence a bit to make it make sense. There are some grammatical issues with this past sentence though I suspect that may be because you didn't edit it (after all, this is just a casual piece of analysis). His conclusion of that 'it is time' suggests that now is the time Repetition. for the audience to get our theirYou are not the audience. The reader/audience is. acts together and stop the cutting of urban trees. Rechner motivates the reader to care about their trees and environment and put a halt in the cutting of urban trees.

Some very good, solid analysis. Just some minor vocab and grammar issues. Keep up the good work!

[Anonymous]

Okay. My Piece now. A bit long though

Rechner argues that a tree near his home is valued for its beauty, therefore presenting its loss as pitiful.  He lists praises I don't think you can "list praise"?for the Norfolk Island pine tree, calling it "avian refuge," "beacon of beauty" and "landmark." These words have a positive   connotation with an extraordinarily high aesthetic value, allowing some readers to be in awe of the tree described. While other readers may not appreciate aesthetics very easily. A piece of writing that focus on the beauty such as Rechner's letter may detract this group of readers from his point of view, making it unlikely to for these readers to be persuaded. No. Objectivity is life. Always assume the audience is persuaded. The task is not to judge whether or not the audience is persuaded. These readers however, are not of the writer's target audience Then don't talk about them in your analysis. as he appears   to aim the piece at the readers who like the beauty of nature. In a disappointed tone, Recher concludes this list with the word "gone."  The rapid tonal shift v. good. within one sentence may agitate the readers, positioning them to be shocked at the tree's disappearance. Many readers may already be encouraged to value the tree for its beauty. Having that beauty taken away could very much upset these readers, convincing them that the loss of the tree as a pity.  Readers who does not appreciate beauty very much would not be neither be convinced by the list, nor would they be convinced by the conclusion of the list. It may actually further denigrate them to become rather careless about the trees the writer clearly write about. Following the list, there is a quotation which describes trees that "move some tears of joy" is "a green thing which stands in the way." The juxtaposition of the two viewpoints shows the two contrasting perspectives of the tree. good. Since the writer has focused mostly on the former viewpoint, the letter viewpoint can be seemed to be insignificant. No. You seem to be evaluating the writer's decisions more than analysing it. You're not allowed to do that in LA I don't think... Since the quote is from a famous poet, it is likely to be trusted amongst people who like literature appealing to their sense of beauty and excellence as well.  As they are likely to appreciate William Blake's poems, they are likely Repetition. to appreciate the tree as well, from Blake's point of view. Rechner's arguments of the tree's aesthetic values can be convincing the readers that a significant tree that is lost in the neighbourhood should be mourned. ungrammatical

If I screwed up and am giving the wrong feedback, someone correct me please. Don't want to be misleading people. :/

There were some grammatical issues here but I suspect that may have just been cuz this is an informal analysis and so you probably didn't check it as you would if this was a SAC. Some very good, solid analysis overall and some minor areas of concern but overall, good job!

Side note: I got lazy and didn't want to write "good job" everywhere so I just slapped a smiley face after good bits. Hence why there are scattered throughout your piece.

[HopefulLawStudent]

The above one was me. I was having such a good run of not accidentally posting stuff anonymously too. 

Side note: Ignore my first comment about "list praise". I get what you mean now. I was just having a bit of a blonde moment. 

[Anonymous]

Peter Rechner approaches the issue of felling of urban trees in a humorous, light hearted manner, and yet this serves to expose the extent of the impact that such actions would cause. By personifying the tree as a ‘valued neighbour’, the author explicates the importance of its role in their community. He draws parallels between it and other human beings, and thus demonstrates the cruelty of its destruction, attempting to elicit the same degree of outrage and grief from the audience as if a human were to have passed in this way. This serves to engender further engagement in this issue from readers as they begin to sympathize with the loss of the tree and are whereby drawn to support the ‘moratorium on removing significant urban trees.’  The use of ‘moratorium’ in this case, with its similar phonetic sound to ‘mausoleum’ adds an additional level of depth to the personification of the pine, as if indicating it deserves a more respectful death and burial than being treated simply as ‘a green thing which stands in the way’. (Is this too out there?) The crude choice of words in this latter case consequently intimates the selfish and heartless character of those who are initiating this destruction of urban trees and taking away this icon of beneficiality- an ‘absorber of carbon dioxide, avian refuge, spender of shade’ and such- from the neighbourhood for their own benefit, hinted by the author’s exasperation with ‘another house demolition’. This sense of importance is further accentuated by the finality of the term ‘gone’, which draws attention to the irreversibility of such actions. Hence, the reputation of such parties is disparaged in the audience’s perspective, who are subsequently galvanised to act immediately in order to prevent future loss from occurring by supporting the ban on felling urban trees.

[literally lauren]

Peter Rechner approaches the issue of felling of urban trees in a humorous, light hearted manner, and yet this serves to expose the extent of the impact that such actions would cause. By personifying the tree as a ‘valued neighbour’, the author explicates the importance of its role in their community. He draws parallels between it and other human beings and thus demonstrates the cruelty of its destruction, attempting to elicit the same degree of outrage and grief from the audience as if a human were to have passed in this way. This serves to engender further engagement in this issue from readers bit too general; either say something about readers' emotional response (as you do in the second part of this sentence,) or focus on the author's intent. Generic comments about how a technique 'encourages readers to take a stance on this issue' or w/e are characteristic of mid-range essays as they begin to sympathize with the loss of the tree and are whereby drawn to support the ‘moratorium on removing significant urban trees.’ The use of ‘moratorium’ in this case, with its similar phonetic sound to ‘mausoleum’ adds an additional level of depth to the personification of the pine, niiiiice as if indicating it deserves a more respectful death and burial than being treated simply as ‘a green thing which stands in the way’. (Is this too out there?) no, because you justified your reasoning! If you had just said 'the author says moratorium which makes readers think of mausoleums and therefore they respect the tree more,' then it might sound a bit tenuous, but the way you've explained this is totally fine and coalesces neatly with the gist of the author's argument. The crude choice of words in this latter case consequently intimates the selfish and heartless character of those who are initiating this destruction of urban trees and taking away this icon of beneficiality- an ‘absorber of carbon dioxide, avian refuge, spender of shade’ you could probably do more with this quote; you're kind of just using it to summarise here instead of unpacking the specific language. However, because you've analysed other quotes so effectively, you wouldn't be expected to do this everytime. It's just that, in isolation, this part might feel a little incomplete; in the context of this paragraph it'd be fine though and such- from the neighbourhood for their own benefit, hinted by the author’s exasperation with ‘another house demolition’. This sense of importance is further accentuated by the finality of the term ‘gone’, which draws attention to the irreversibility of such actions. Hence, the reputation of such parties which parties? is disparaged in the audience’s perspective, who are subsequently galvanised to act immediately in order to prevent future loss from occurring by supporting the ban on felling urban trees.

Really solid dissection of specific quotes, and you seem to have grasped quite a few subtleties in this author's argument. Those moments of highly specific discussion were especially good; just be careful not to make any statements that you can't justify with analysis