Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 28, 2024, 08:16:49 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 7  (Read 5021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
[2016 LA Club] Week 7
« on: April 06, 2016, 03:45:03 pm »
+4
Getting meta this week with a cartoon about people who write Letters to the Editor :P

Note that cartoons aren't like some of the more standard visuals (eg. the logos from a few weeks ago) in that cartoons are much more contention-driven. This image has a point that it's trying to convey, so for this week, focus on discerning that argument and try to substantiate your interpretation with visual evidence.

Lots of layers of symbolism you can unpack here if you so desire!

(^ignore watermarks; they're not persuasive :P)

Good luck!

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2016, 03:50:32 pm »
+5

(^ignore watermarks; they're not persuasive :P)


And here I was about to write an 1000 word piece on the watermarks alone. There goes my contribution for this week. *sarcasm*

Might come back and do this later on in the week... laziness prevails. :P

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2016, 10:36:27 pm »
0
hi everyone :) I realise that there is a bit of waffling and repetition in this, but I'm not sure where to start cutting down. Also, is there enough actual analysis of the cartoon of how it positions the audience? Or is there too much summary of the content of the cartoon? This is a major problem I have with my essays! Also unsure of whether the contention is right and the target audience (all i got was readers of letters to the editor, and possibly writers of letters to the editor, but didn't really elaborate at all on the latter)

In a generalisation, the cartoonist contends that letters written to the editor should be more purposeful, rather than meaningless opinions formed spontaneously. The title of the yellow board ' Today I am offended by' is the cartoonist's attempt to suggest that the writers of letters to the editor choose random topics to be ' offended' by, implying that the content of letters to the editor are primarily petty complaints and aimless rants. The audience is thus inclined to feel that these letters to the editor are less meaningful than previously perceived. The labels underneath this title are hyperbolic of the cartoonist's proposed absurdity of some topics argued in letters to the editor. The label 'movie I never saw' connotes the lack of actual understanding of a topic on that a writer of these letters have, encouraging readers of these letters to the editor to become more doubtful over the legitimacy and credit of the opinions expressed in these letters. Other labels such as 'tofu', 'anchovies', 'other opinions', 'fat' and 'the oboe' serve to highlight the ludicrousness of certain topics discussed as well as the arbitrary and undirected way in which they are chosen; that is to say that writers of these letters simply write about opinions that fleetingly cross their mind, rather than opinions which they have formed after thorough mediation. This further undermines the sincerity of these writer's motivations, leading readers of these letters to feel cheated and therefore less inclined to take the letters seriously in the future. The haphazardness of the topics of the letters is also emphasised through the woman's covering of her eyes and random aiming of darts, furthering the insincerity of the letters. In an attempt to eradicate any mystery over the identities of these faceless writers, the cartoonist illustrates the mediocrity and banality of these writer's lives by depicting the extremely ordinary events of this writer in her robe drinking a beverage at home on her dinner table. This removes any glory or foreignness that may be attached to the writers, hence lessening their appeal. By juxtaposing the bright yellow of the board and the dull colours of the robe, table cloth and table, as well as exaggerating the woman's smile through caricature, the cartoonist also postulates that perhaps this trivial process of writing meaningless letters to the editor is a highlight of their day and that their only motivation for writing is for their own enjoyment. Once again, a sense of distrust is aroused within the readers of these letters, as they may realise now that what they may have read daily and taken seriously is written perhaps purely for the amusement of the writer. Feeling deceived, they are inclined to agree with the cartoonist’s contention and may perhaps avoid reading letters to the editor in the future or take them more so with a grain of salt.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2016, 04:56:51 pm »
0
That the woman should have her eyes closed whilst shooting the darts indicates that she was not entirely engaged with the task at hand. The three darts that the audience assumes she has previously thrown somewhat haphazardly suggests she was carelessly throwing them in the hopes they would hit one of the marked topics. On her desk is a newspaper; when coupled with the accompanying caption which makes mention of "letters to the editor", the viewer may infer she was shooting these darts with the hopes of hitting a topic on the board. The cartoonist portrays the woman as the embodiment of all contributors to the “Letters to the Editor” portion of the newspaper. Thus, that the board she is aiming darts at should read “Today I am offended by” suggests she, and the macrocosm she represented, were not truly affronted by the topics they claimed to be in their letters.  That the topics should be so varied and vague further highlights the cartoonist’s vilification of this party as he intimates these individuals derived some pleasure in being “offended” and had no preference as to what engendered their indignation. To this end, the cartoonist mockingly undermines these people and the purpose with which they write their “Letter to the Editor” submissions. He vilifies these individuals by portraying them as people who habitually complained for the sake of doing so. This elicits the antagonism and annoyance of the audience, thereby distancing them from those who pen these letters and encouraging them to dismiss letters to the editor and the views conveyed to be as absurd as the notion an individual could be “offended” by a “movie [they] never saw”.

---.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 08:40:58 pm by HopefulLawStudent »

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2016, 11:28:05 pm »
+1
hi everyone :) I realise that there is a bit of waffling and repetition in this, but I'm not sure where to start cutting down. Also, is there enough actual analysis of the cartoon of how it positions the audience? Or is there too much summary of the content of the cartoon? This is a major problem I have with my essays! Also unsure of whether the contention is right and the target audience (all i got was readers of letters to the editor, and possibly writers of letters to the editor, but didn't really elaborate at all on the latter)

In a generalisation, the cartoonist contends that letters written to the editor should be more purposeful, rather than meaningless opinions formed spontaneously. I’d argue they’re saying that L2Es are always meaningless, rather than that they should become purposeful The title of the yellow board ' Today I am offended by' is the cartoonist's attempt to suggest that the writers of letters to the editor choose random topics to be ' offended' by, implying that the content of letters to the editor are primarily petty complaints and aimless rants. The audience is thus inclined to feel that these letters to the editor are less meaningful than previously perceived.  Awesome! :D Only thing you could change is being more specific about how the audience feels about the letters.  Otherwise, you could shorten it like this: … choose random topics to be ‘offended’ by, angling the readers to view the content of letters to the editor as…  See how that’s more concise, by avoiding the second sentence which is a little vague and generalised?  You could then flesh that out more specifically, if you wanted.  The labels underneath this title are hyperbolic of the cartoonist's proposed absurdity of some topics argued in letters to the editor ’are hyperbolic of absurdity’ doesn’t quite make sense – try to restructure. The label 'movie I never saw' connotes the lack of actual understanding of a topic on that a writer of these letters have, encouraging readers of these letters to the editor to become more doubtful over nothing wrong here at all, just pointing out a random example of how you could be more concise: to become more doubtful over could be to doubt; often using more direct verbs rather than longer roundabout phrases helps make your writing more powerful, it just takes practice and reading over your work afterwards to see how you can improve it  the legitimacy and credit of the opinions expressed in these letters. Other labels such as 'tofu', 'anchovies', 'other opinions', 'fat' and 'the oboe' serve to highlight the ludicrousness of certain topics discussed as well as the arbitrary and undirected way in which they are chosen AWESOME; that is to say that writers of these letters simply write about opinions that fleetingly cross their mind, rather than opinions which they have formed after thorough mediation but then this goes too far with describing – could cut it entirely. This further undermines the sincerity of these writer's motivations, leading readers of these letters to feel cheated is this about sincerity and feeling cheated? I feel it’s more about ignorance and being unfoundedly opinionated – there’s a sense of idleness and selfishness and a heap of other things, but maybe less insincerity (but that’s probably just my feelings haha, I’m tired) and therefore less inclined to take the letters seriously in the future. The haphazardness of the topics of the letters is also emphasised through the woman's covering of her eyes and random aiming of darts, furthering the insincerity of the letters. In an attempt to eradicate any mystery over the identities of these faceless writers, the cartoonist illustrates the mediocrity and banality of these writer's lives by depicting the extremely ordinary events of this writer in her robe drinking a beverage at home on her dinner table could make this description shorter. This removes any glory or foreignness that may be attached to the writers, hence lessening their appeal noice ideas – not surface-level, not stuff others will think of, so it stands out. By juxtaposing the bright yellow of the board and the dull colours of the robe, table cloth and table, as well as exaggerating the woman's smile through caricature, the cartoonist also postulates that perhaps this trivial process of writing meaningless letters to the editor is a highlight of their day and that their only motivation for writing is for their own enjoyment. Once again, a sense of distrust is aroused within the readers of these letters, as they may realise now that what they may have read daily and taken seriously is written perhaps purely for the amusement of the writer this felt a little laboured/drawn out/over-descriptive: here’s an example of how you could shorten it.  By juxtaposing the board’s bright yellow with the dull colours round the women, the author postulates that writing letters is a highlight of their day, and only for enjoyment, arousing distrust in the readers as they realise they may be written purely for the writer’s amusement.  Can you see how it cuts out lots of little redundancies in what you say?  I’d love you to go over your writing in hindsight and try to cut it down as short as you can; you’ll probably find little tricks for making punchier writing (e.g. turning ‘distrust is aroused in’ to ‘arouses distrust in’) that you can practise using all the time.. Feeling deceived, they are inclined to agree with the cartoonist’s contention agree that… (be more specific rather than just a general ‘likely to agree with author’ statement) and may perhaps avoid reading letters to the editor in the future or take them more so with a grain of salt could shorten, again – removing the wordy colloquial idiom (‘take with a grain of salt’) could help too

I love some of those ideas/symbologies you drew out – some more reasonable than others, of course, but often things that other students wouldn’t pick up on.  And that’s what’s going to make you stand out.  You also focus really well on bringing it back to that all-important impact on the audience, which is amazing.

You were right  that your biggest issue is waffling a bit – but that can be remedied.  To do this:
1.   Go over pieces afterwards and try to make them as concise as possible, chopping ruthlessly
2.   Look for things you cut (e.g. certain sentence structures); you’ll find that there are patterns of ways to make writing more concise.  If you don’t get this, or want some examples, let me know!
3.   Practise improving that next time you write.  It’ll improve over time, I promise.  It’s hard to write concisely first time (just see the hopelessly verbose comments I’m giving you now!)

And everyone can always improve on being more specific on exactly how a phrase or feature impacts the audience: what specific emotions/thoughts it evokes, and how exactly it does that.  But you are solidly on the way to LA success.  Keep it up.



Soz that this is so short, HLS - I'm so out of practice in giving feedback right now that I'm already over it hahahaha :P

That the woman should have her eyes closed whilst shooting the darts indicates that she was not entirely engaged with the task at hand. The three darts that the audience assumes she has previously thrown somewhat haphazardly suggests she was carelessly throwing them in the hopes they would hit one of the marked topics. On her desk is a newspaper; when coupled with the accompanying caption which makes mention of "letters to the editor", the viewer may infer she was shooting these darts with the hopes of hitting a topic on the board. The cartoonist portrays the woman as the embodiment of all contributors to the “Letters to the Editor” portion of the newspaper. This is really a bit long describing it; you haven’t yet got to the point of what it’s arguing or how it influences the reader.  Parts of it just feel… redundant.  I’d probably cut the underlined sentences, in fact – fairly obvious and don’t add to your analysis. Thus, that the board she is aiming darts at should read “Today I am offended by” suggests she, and the macrocosm she represented, were not truly affronted by the topics they claimed to be in their letters.  That the topics should be so varied and vague further highlights the cartoonist’s vilification of this party ’of letter-writers’ or something makes it clearer who you’re referring to, and just feels smoother as he intimates these individuals derived some pleasure in being “offended” and had no preference as to what engendered their indignation. To this end, the cartoonist mockingly undermines be-a-u-tiful these people and the purpose with which they write their “Letter to the Editor” submissions. He vilifies these individuals by portraying them as people who habitually complained for the sake of doing so. This elicits the antagonism and annoyance of the audience, thereby distancing them from those who pen these letters and encouraging them to dismiss letters to the editor and the views conveyed to be as absurd as the notion an individual could be “offended” by a “movie [they] never saw”. Could probably get to the emotions/feelings/thoughts/beliefs/views it arouses in the audience sooner than the last sentence – it would give you more time to flesh out more specifically how they’re influenced by various aspects of the cartoon, and how they view these letters.  You could also, say, pull apart the 'movie they never saw', rather than lumping it in with the one sentence on effect.

Only other quick comment is that… damn, you write beautifully.
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

Uni (2021-24): Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash Clayton

Work: PCA in residential aged care

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2016, 04:05:29 pm »
0
Could probably get to the emotions/feelings/thoughts/beliefs/views it arouses in the audience sooner than the last sentence – it would give you more time to flesh out more specifically how they’re influenced by various aspects of the cartoon, and how they view these letters.  You could also, say, pull apart the 'movie they never saw', rather than lumping it in with the one sentence on effect.

Then what's supposed to go in the last sentence of an analysis body paragraph? I never have any idea...

Only other quick comment is that… damn, you write beautifully.

I only wish my current English teacher thought that too.  :'(

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2021, 05:41:11 pm »
0
Wiley's cartoon takes a comic tone to mock the misguided attacks at society often observed by those who write lettors to the editor, with the intention to position regular readers of newspapers to disregard these opinion pieces. The cartoon's board of topics engaged by the letters to the editor, the tabs portray a barrage of absurd and inane suggestions such as "tofu", "cartoons", and "anchovies", positioning the viewers share the artist's critical opinion that the authors of letters to the editor rarely take on valid contentions. The card with the title "Everything! (throw again)" mimics the cards of a board game, suggesting that the arguments presented by these letters are trivial, complaining for the sake of it, and are thus not worth the viewer's attention. Supplementing this, the title at the top of the board, showing the issue of "today", suggests that these argumenters are fickle in the subject of their commentary, and change on a daily basis. This reinforces Wiley's comment on the shallow nature of the letters. The figure, supposedly the writer, throws darts with a hand over her eyes. Wiley alludes to the incompetence of the authors, condemning the randomness of their protestations and lack of sufficient knowledge to carry trough a credible argument. In addition, the aimless darts around the board moreover convey the ineptitude of the writers, with the intention to discredit the reliability of these opinion pieces and therefore engender distrust within the viewers. Implicitly, the haphazardness of the darts signifies that these opinion pieces rarely engage te heart of the issue, and are thus unworthy of viewers' attention. Cumulatively, Wiley's image sardonically imparts the notion that the authors of the letters to the editor are blindly attacking concepts that bear little relevence to the function of society; newspaper readers, likely those interested in engaging opinions and events, are likely to be repelled from reading these sections.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 7
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2021, 08:56:34 pm »
+1
Wiley's cartoon takes a comic tone to mock the misguided attacks at society often observed by those who write lettors to the editor, with the intention to position regular readers of newspapers to disregard these opinion pieces. V good summation of the contention, well done! The cartoon's board of topics engaged by the letters to the editor, the tabs portray a barrage of absurd and inane suggestions such as "tofu", "cartoons", and "anchovies", positioning the viewers share the artist's critical opinion that the authors of letters to the editor rarely take on valid contentions (I think the image focuses more on the fact that the subject matter is inane/petty/unimportant as opposed to the Letter to the Editor arguments being invalid) . The card with the title "Everything! (throw again)" mimics the cards of a board game, the second part of this analysis is good, but I'm not sure about what you mean about a board game here - are you saying the cartoonist is making this seem like a childish playtime activity, for example?  suggesting that the arguments presented by these letters are trivial, complaining for the sake of it, and are thus not worth the viewer's attention. Supplementing this, the title at the top of the board, showing the issue of "today", suggests that these argumenters are fickle great point; great word! in the subject of their commentary, and change on a daily basis. This reinforces Wiley's comment on the shallow nature of the letters. The figure, supposedly the writer, throws darts with a hand over her eyes. Wiley alludes to the incompetence of the authors, condemning the randomness of their protestations Excellent! and lack of sufficient knowledge to carry trough a credible argument. In addition, the aimless darts around the board moreover convey the ineptitude of the writers, (might be a good opportunity to pair this with a discussion of cards like "movie I never saw" and "the wrong religion" that further ridicules the author's intellect and undermines the validity of their views) with the intention to discredit the reliability of these opinion pieces and therefore engender distrust within the viewers. Great comment on the broader effect here! Implicitly, the haphazardness of the darts signifies that these opinion pieces rarely engage te heart of the issue, and are thus unworthy of viewers' attention. Cumulatively, Wiley's image sardonically imparts the notion that the authors of the letters to the editor are blindly attacking concepts that bear little relevence to the function of society; newspaper readers, likely those interested in engaging opinions and events, are likely to be repelled from reading these sections. <-- Some teachers are okay with this, but for the sake of the exam, try to avoid commenting on whether a certain response from the audience is likely/unlikely, or whether the author is effective/ineffective in conveying things. You run the risk of seeming to definitive about how potential readers may think/feel/respond, but you also don't want to fence-sit or sound unsure of yourself. So, the safer option is to frame this in terms of what the author wants, i.e. 'Thus, Wiley endeavours to position newspaper readers, likely those interested in engaging with such opinions and events, to be repelled by the carelessness involved in such idle and directionless complaining, thereby encouraging them to refrain from reading such letters let alone engage in writing them.'
Great work overall! Excellent vocabulary, and you've picked up on lots of nuances in the piece while also being selective and not commenting on every single card on the board!

As a bit of a bonus challenge (because I think commenting on less obvious visual features is often the easiest way to stand out), consider what you might say about the elements I've highlighted in red & blue here:


Again, I'm by no means implying any one bit of analysis is essential; I'm only adding this because what you've done so far is so comprehensive, and this is basically the only way I can think of extending it! Have a go at thinking about this (or write up a few sentences if you want) before sneaking a peak at my answer below ;)

Spoiler
Red: haphazard darts that haven't even hit the cards on the board = implies the author isn't even particularly skilled at this exercise and further contributes to the sense of directionless, purposeless 'offence'.

Blue: the board is about what "offend[s ]" the author, and yet she appears to be smiling, cosy in her dressing gown with her morning coffee. Her expression belies her pretence of offence - she doesn't actually care about any of these issues, hence why she doesn't even care to look at the target of her rage. This would work well with an analysis of some of the ironic juxtaposition of potential topics here (e.g. something as contentious as "the wrong religion" or as vague as "science" is just centimetres away from trivialities like "tofu" and "the oboe," and to be equally "offended" by all of these makes her a subject of ridicule).