2017 LA Club - Week 1

[patriciarose]

haven’t done language analysis since term 3 of year 11, so i should probably warn you in advance that this is horrific lmao. (also i skipped the entire middle because five minute analysis ftw) this is such a great idea to practice though! i’ll mark one or two tomorrow (:

Charles Slack, in his letter to the editor, "The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee," decries sardonically the idea that Harper Lee’s legacy remains anything less than the stellar author of “one of the most beloved [literary] works.” Moreover, he contends, a plethora of less fortunate writers covet her success. Slack opens his argument by enclosing the words “tragic story” in quotation marks, thus conveying both his abject disapproval of the phrase as well as his incapacity to comprehend it as applied to Lee’s life. This by extension suggests to readers that this viewpoint is unsustainable and inaccurate. The initial use of the word “beloved” connotes warm commendation, intimating to readers that Lee received considerable acclaim for her work and thus inviting them to share in the positive sentiment. Later, Slack reprises the same word to further highlight its accuracy and thus reinforce the connotations of positivity. He closes his argument by referencing the “line” of aspiring writers which endeavour to achieve Lee’s success, thereby suggesting to readers that Lee has been the subject of much enviable acclaim and so, far from pitying her, they should admire that even her “lesser” work has been a source of inspiration for “millions."

edit: the two messages below this are mine lmao. didn't want to quadruple post, sorry!

[Anonymous]

Due to a recent death of the author Harper Lee, Washington post has created an opinion piece labelling the sequel to ‘how to kill a mocking bird’ as a tragedy. it's a title, the author writes it in caps, you write it in caps.The audience of this piece are readers who have read ‘how to kill a mocking jay,’ mockingBIRD, not jay (; and fans of Harper Lee. i mean, don't get me wong, that is TRUE, but it seems a bit direct the way you've stated it?The piece’s contention is that the sequel , ‘Go set a watch man’ will tarnish the ‘beloved’ classic and the legacy of Lee. Charles Slack responds to this claim with a letter to the editor. Slack’s contention is that the sequel does not a tarnish Harper’s or the sequel’s legacy. He supports this contention by associating the success of the sequel, and the perceptions of the audience towards his contention. this is good but you need to be more concise. why say something in four sentences when you could say it in one. also, you don't want to waste an argument by using it in the introduction instead of analysing it in more depth later. it doesn't really matter how a contention is supported in the intro, just later on.

The author of the opinion piece’s just use his name. first and last name the first time you mention him, then after that you'll be fine sticking to just last name (: use of describing why the sequel was created is used to belittle the authenticity of the sequel. The author does this by the use of strong and sophisted language such as ‘foisted’ and ‘akin’ in order to sound more knowledgeable. This is to make the audience believe that what the author is saying is educated and therefore right. two issues with this: takes you too long to get to the point, and that analysis could literally be applied to any quote. don't get me wrong, you're not incorrect, but you could do more. The author you need to use their surname.uses the ethos of the audience,  by claiming the tarnishing of Lee’s reputation was at fault because of the sequel, and claiming that the sequel was created by the public’s eagerness. This is to discredit the the authenticity of the sequel and position the reader to believe that the sequel is a completely different interpretation to the sequel. nice analysis. Charles Slack however uses logos by associating the success of the sequel to discredit the author’s view that the sequel tarnishes the legacy of Lee. This is done by Lee pointing out the rows of the lines queuing for the sequel. half of that is basically a quote so you may as well quote it, since you're analysing it already (: Lee further diminishes the author’s claim through the use of logos. He does this by poinitng that out that ‘history will place Go set a watchman in its proper context, and how to kill a mocking jay will hold it’s position as one of the most beloved works of American literature.’ i am very iffy about long quotes since it means you run the risk of having the article write your analysis for you. probably it's more beneficial to break this up a little. By doing this, it dispels fear from the audience that the sequel will somehow clash with Lee’s legacy. i've never used logos, pathos or ethos and as such can't comment. so instead i'll just add that again, it's mockingbird ahaha. this is a good analysis and i hope my comments didn't come across as mean, just trying to nitpick to help (:

forgot to tick the off-anon box, oops. the above is mine. (i'd delete the post and edit it in here but i have no idea how to, sorry!)

Mod Edit (Jamon): I have absolutely no idea what the heck is going on or how to make posts non anonymous (probably can't, that would be a security issue, ahaha). Much confusion. Anyway, umm... Post merge? 

[Anonymous]

haven’t done language analysis since term 3 of year 11, so i should probably warn you in advance that this is horrific lmao. (also i skipped the entire middle because five minute analysis ftw) this is such a great idea to practice though! i’ll mark one or two tomorrow (:

Charles Slack, in his letter to the editor, "The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee," decries sardonically Switch these around. Sardonically decries the idea that Harper Lee’s legacy remains anything less than the stellar author Expression is a bit odd. Not entirely clear. of “one of the most beloved [literary] works.” Moreover, he contends, Really minor. But if you start this sentence in a different way (avoiding the moreover) it might sound less fragmented. a plethora of less fortunate writers covet her success. Slack opens his argument by enclosing the words “tragic story” in quotation marks, thus conveying both his abject disapproval of the phrase as well as his incapacity to comprehend it as applied to Lee’s life This is really good! . This by extension By extension, this. Sounds a bit better. suggests to readers that this viewpoint is unsustainable and inaccurate. The initial use of the word “beloved” connotes warm commendation This sentence breaks up cohesion in your analysis. It's kind of a sudden jump from your last bit of analysis. , intimating to readers that (I don't think this part is necessary) Lee received considerable acclaim for her work and thus inviting invites them to share in the positive sentiment. Later, Slack reprises the same word to further highlight its accuracy and thus reinforce the connotations of positivity Nice link . He closes his argument by referencing the “line” of aspiring writers which who, not which endeavour Not sure if endeavour is the right word here. How about aspire. to achieve Lee’s success, thereby suggesting to readers that Lee has been the subject of much enviable acclaim and so, far from pitying her, they should admire that even her “lesser” work has been a source of inspiration for “millions."

edit: the two messages below this are mine lmao. didn't want to quadruple post, sorry!

Really nice analysis. Especially since you aren't even studying English this year! Only minor details like expression and word choice need to be changed. 

[clarke54321]

  Sorry was mine ^^ If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

[Anonymous]

Charlie Slack’s letter to the editor “The tragedy of Harper Lee” sarcastically preaches of Harper Lee’s rather successive career as an author. Slack prompts the reader through metaphor as Lee “shatters” sale records, emphasising that Lee sold a record high amount of “Go Set a Watchman.” This reinforces that Lee is not an unsuccessful or tragedy, but someone who is known and loved by readers. He distinctly separates the books “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Go Set a Watchman” to their individual attributes, which inspires readers to hold “new and impassioned” conversations. This denotes the positive and eye opening experience the books have provided to readers. He continues to compliment Lee’s books as “one of the most beloved works”, which highlights the endless love and support the book holds, even though it was published half a century ago. Finally, Slack ends that many aspiring writers want to “experience the same tragedy”, he sarcastically points out that Lee’s life was no tragedy, and it was such a successive career that many authors want to walk in her footsteps.

[clarke54321]

Charlie Slack’s letter to the editor “The tragedy of Harper Lee” sarcastically preaches Not sure if preaches is the right word of Harper Lee’s rather successful career as an author. Slack prompts the reader through metaphor as Lee “shatters” sale records I think you should flip this sentence around to give it more strength. By declaring that Lee has 'shatter[ed]' sale records, Slack prompts readers to acknowledge the sheer amount of records sold by the author , emphasising that Lee sold a record high amount of “Go Set a Watchman.” This reinforces that Lee is not an unsuccessful writer? or tragedy, but someone who is known and loved by readers Good! But how does this then position readers to feel?. He distinctly separates the books “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Go Set a Watchman” to their individual attributes, which inspires readers to hold “new and impassioned” conversations Not too sure what you're trying to say here. Slack's argument is that "Go Set a Watchmen" has provoked 'new and impassioned' conversations in society . This denotes the positive and eye opening experience the books have provided readers with . He continues to compliment Lee’s books Should this be singular: books as “one of the most beloved works”, which highlights the endless love and support the book holds, even though it was published half a century ago. Finally, Slack ends that many aspiring writers want to <----- expression needs some work “experience the same tragedy”, You need a linking word here. It's too fragmented he sarcastically points out that Lee’s life was no tragedy, and it was such a successive career that many authors want to walk in her footsteps. What is the effect on the reader

Well done! To improve, you should refer to audience impact more frequently and ensure that there is coherency between sentences and clauses. Keep up the good work. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!  

[Anonymous]

Feel free to rekt me, I need all the help I can get with eng lol

i just did the intro and one para since i wasn't too sure how to split the arguments

The release of Harper Lee’s widely anticipated sequel “Go Set a Watchman” has engendered intense debate over whether her dissipating fame is a consequence of this novel. In his opinionative article “No way to treat an author: How Harper Lee lost control of her legacy”, Washington Post, Charles Slack argues in a lightly satirical tone that the novel, in effect, compounds Harper Lee’s unprecedented success. Clearly as reflected by the title, the readers to whom the piece is directed are Lee’s legions of readers, although literature fanatics may welcome it to help provide them with a clearer perspective of Lee’s legacy to the world of literature.

The repetition of the adjective “beloved” to describe both novels positively connotes their longstanding value. By suggesting that Lee’s creations are dearly treasured and loved by readers, Slack renders Go Set a Watchman akin to To Kill a Mockingbird. Henceforth, readers are positioned to draw parallels between Lee’s works- both cherished. Slack further likens Go Set a Watchman to To Kill a Mockingbird, which he venerated through the use of the positive superlative “greatest”. Thus, by employing the word “another” to describe Lee’s second novel, he intimates it is on par with her first masterpiece, consequently inviting readers to reflect on their preconceived views towards Go Set a Watchman. Moreover, the alliteration “shatters sales” alludes to the overwhelming popularity of the novel, challenging readers to reassess the worth of a supposedly subpar work. Instead, Slack manoeuvres the reader to perceive the novel as a monstrous commercial success, albeit not as sought-after as Lee’s first novel. In addition, Slack juxtaposes the true success of the novel against the common misbelief that Lee’s life purportedly transformed into “a tale of woe”. In so doing, Slack strives to accentuate the flawed logic of those who fail to acknowledge Harper’s success. Coupled with the What do I call this technique?
 3 words which are increasing in strength? “out the door, around the block and over the horizon”, Slack postulates that the desire of innumerable people is to be in Lee’s position. Hence, Slack mocks those who resist to acknowledge Harper’s success, suggesting that they exaggerated Lee’s adversity and dismissed her multifarious, unparalleled contributions to American literature.

I just ignored the bit about "lesser work", since I'm not sure how to include that- doesn't it go against what Slack is saying? 

[HopefulLawStudent]

So glad the LA club is on this year, it's reallyyyy not the best language analysis but here my attempt at it.

In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack sets out to negate the portrayal of Harper Lee's life as a tragedy by utilising satire to convey the magnitude of her success. Slack aggrandises the reception of Lee's novel by illustrating how it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', followed by the use of the superlative 'greatest' to describe its movie adaptationa lot of quoting here but you haven't really analysed said quotes so all you've done is flagged missed opportunities for analysis, immediately engendering derision in readers at the opinion piece's description of this how
 does it engender derision??, as a tragedy. Slack, depicting Lee's admittedly 'lesser book' to have ignited nation wide discussions, exemplifies the influence of her literature and subsequently highlights the absurdity in the opinion piece's claims.  good. Continuing with his use of superlatives, coupled with positive avoid words like positive or negative as, for language analysis, they're typically too general!
 Be more specific!!!connotations, Slack portrays Lee's debut novel as 'one of the most beloved works', inculcating in readers, admiration towards Lee's achievements, thereby inclining them to  dismiss notions of Lee's ostensibly "tragic story"' as nonsensical. this sentence = too verbose/rambly! Be as concise and crisp in your response!Through Slack's mocking tone, describing the numerous writers being envious of Lee's success referred to as a 'tragedy', readers are left staunchly opposed to idea of her legacy being destroyed by the evidently noteworthy 'Go Set a Watchman'.

In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack employs a mocking tone to destabilise the belief that Harper Lee’s legacy as a writer has become unrightfully tarnished. Slack’s use of inverted commas around the phrase ‘tragic story’ indicates his inability to understand why Lee’s career has been casted as devastating or miserable. Rather, misused rather; should have been used in the context of "...is not A. Rather, it is B" which isn't what's happened herethe commas assist Slack in conveying the idea that Lee’s story is far from tragic and that reactions have been grossly exaggerated. Encouraging readers to also adopt this viewpoint, Slack relies on the objective idiom, ‘let’s see.’ Here, Slack intends to establish himself as an impartial commentator of the situation, who seeks to lay out the raw facts and reach an unbiased conclusion. How have you jumped from: "let's see" to "impartial commentator"? More elaboration needed.NB: Try and smoothen the transition between different pieces of evidence/analysis. Having something like "in a similar fashion" or whatever would make your response seem much more cohesive...? Not sure if the next bit "striing for this approach to induce trust and confidence in readers" was supposed to be a transition; if it is then disregard previous comment. The bit about "striving....
 confidence in readers" though seems unnecessarily clumsily worded and impedes upon the flow of your response.Striving for this approach to induce trust and confidence in readers, Slack assuredly asserts that Lee’s newly discovered novel, ‘Go Set a Watchman,’ ‘inspires new and impassioned conversations about literature and race.’ Quote is much too long imo; try and be more selective about the quote. The verb ‘inspires,’ enables Slack to give pertinence to the idea that conversations have been reignited with a newfound vigour by the aforementioned novel; a vigour, which, as indicated by the adjective ‘new,’ has previously been missing or exhausted in conversation. Consequently, readers are urged to perceive additions to Lee’s work as not as a ‘woe[ful] tragedy,’ but as efficacious and advantageous to modern day literature and ultimately, Lee’s name as a writer. sentence amendment there makes it flow better; no big deal.

 ** I will mark the work of another user tomorrow! 

Charles Slack’s letter to the editor rejects The Washington Post’s claim that the publication of ‘Go Set a Watchman’ tarnished Harper Lee’s legacy as an author who challenged the status quo, and exposed and condemned the inherent societal prejudices of her time. rule of thumb: if in a sentence you've got more than one "and", you're rambling and could be more concise.Instead, he praises the new release as being assimilarly thought-provoking as Lee’s first. minor amendments to sentence made to make things flow better; no biggie.

The Trumbull resident however prefaces this assertion wait... what assertion?with an establishment of the literary merit of Lee’s work. Suggesting that her first novel was “beloved” by many, and still is “more than a half-century”careful! quoted without analysis. try and avoid doing this as much as you can because when you do, what you're doing is flagging missed opportunities to your assessor which is not where you want their head to be!! after, audiences are positioned to deduce that literary merit must at least factor into why there is such deep admiration of her work that has even been able to persist through ages of changing literary preferences. You've talked about the techniques, the impact on audience but youre missing discussion of the writer's intention/how the technique achieves this impact.Slack’s use of hyperbole in claiming that her work has created “the greatest movies of all time” further reinforces this. Exaggerating such this movies’ quality as almost legendary and mythical in transcending time, this serves to present Lee’s work as equally or greater so as they led to such movies.

In underscoring Lee’s ability to create quality literature, Slack then rebuffs assertions that ‘Go Set a Watchman’ mars her image as an author who spoke out against societal norms. Immediately though, positioning of this argument after establishing her abilities already inclines audiences to accept this assertion; it is as they are positioned to generalize that all of Lee’s works, including ‘Go Set A Watchman’, embody her great literary ability to question inherent prejudices of society. This sentence = unnecessarily vague and could be condensed with the first sentence "In underscoring..."
.Nevertheless, the Trumbull resident furthers his assertion by citing ‘Go Set a Watchman’s’ ability to spark “impassioned conversations”. The word “impassioned” connotes a sense of unrestrained emotion, and serves to allude to the provocative nature of Lee’s highly praised original work. Thus, an association is drawn between the two novels not clear how this association has been drawn -- clarify!, conveying that both are similarly thought provoking and challenging of fortheir respective time periods. Slack however then acknowledges that it is “lesser” so, hence acknowledging of an opposing viewpoint "opposing viewpoint" = too generalto present himself as diplomatic and logical and two "and"s in one sentence...therefore his assertion as similarly so. Seeing Slack’s argument as founded on logical thinking, audiences are hence positioned to more likely accept itwait what? You seem to be saying that he contradicts himself and therefore this makes the audience more inclined to accept. Pls consider rewording..   

Charles Slack argues that despite the publication of To set a watchman, Harper Lee’s legacy still remains preserved. Slack claims that Lee “continues to move millions of new readers each year”, suggesting that her popularity is unwavering. Try and smoothen the transition between two different pieces of evidence by inserting someth like "similarly" or whatever. Adds cohesiveness to your response. By mentioning that “Hollywood… translat[ed] the book into one of the greatest movies of all time”, Slack invites the readers to measure the success of Harper Lee’s novels to be so extensive that Hollywood, a distinguished movie capital, has produced a successful movie about it. As such, bringing the novels into context with Hollywood and movie production, the readership is positioned to perceive the novel as significantly influential. Furthermore, Slack exaggerates the extent of Lee’s legacy by describing her literature to be “beloved by readers”, “move millions of new readers”,”shatter[ing] sales records” and is “one of the most beloved works of American literature”. A lot of quoting here to get the same point across (i.e. emph placed on success). Do you need all of that quoting?This constant If emphasis is placed, it's implied that it's gonna be constant.emphasis on her success establishes an admirable, appreciative tone that evokes awe in readers for the success of Harper Lee. Also, the fact that Lee allegedly still has such a profound influence on the literature world “more than half a half-century after publication” demonstrates to the audience that the success of Harper Lee is unquaveringDo you mean "unwavering"?, thus lingering to be a legacy.More explanation needed: how have you gone from "more than half a century after publication" to "unwavering success"? EXPLAIN. ELABORATE. Slack then reinforces his argument by suggesting to readers with opposing views to consider why other “writers [are] hoping to experience the same tragedy”. Tragedy is satirically labeled in this article to denote successOh? How so? Questioning cos you haven't really brought up/explained this point previously/sufficiently., and Slack manipulates this in a humorous manner to position the audience to view that Lee’s literature success is long lived and her influence is not a tragedy, but an ambition.

haven’t done language analysis since term 3 of year 11, so i should probably warn you in advance that this is horrific lmao. (also i skipped the entire middle because five minute analysis ftw) this is such a great idea to practice though! i’ll mark one or two tomorrow (:

Charles Slack, in his letter to the editor, "The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee," decries sardonically "adjective verb" combo flows better than "verb adjective" so should've gone for "sardonically decries" the idea that Harper Lee’s legacy remains anything less than the stellar author of “one of the most beloved [literary] works.” Moreover, he contends that a plethora of less fortunate writers covet her success. Slack opens his argument by enclosing the words “tragic story” in quotation marks, thus conveying both his abject disapproval of the phrase as well as his incapacity to comprehend it as applied to Lee’s life. good. This by extension suggests to readers that this viewpoint is unsustainable how is it unsustainable?? and inaccurate. The initial use of the word “beloved” connotes warm commendationwhat do you mean by "warm commendation"??, intimating to readers that Lee received considerable acclaim for her work and thus inviting them to share in the positive sentimentthis sentence rambles on too much. Try and be more concise!!. Later, Slack reprises the same word to further highlight its accuracy and thus reinforce the connotations of positivity"connotations of positivity" = too general; is essentially the same as "positive connotations". He closes his argument by referencing the “line” of aspiring writers which endeavour to achieve Lee’s success, thereby suggesting to readers that Lee has been the subject of much enviable acclaim and so, far from pitying her, they should admire that even her “lesser” work has been a source of inspiration for “millions."

edit: the two messages below this are mine lmao. didn't want to quadruple post, sorry!

Due to a recent death of the author Harper Lee, Washington post has created an opinion piece labelling the sequel to ‘how to kill a mocking bird’ as a tragedy. The audience of this piece are readers who have read ‘how to kill a mocking jay,’ and fans of Harper Lee.  The piece’s contention is that the sequel , ‘Go set a watch man’ will tarnish the ‘beloved’ classic and the legacy of Lee. Charles Slack responds to this claim with a letter to the editor. Slack’s contention is that the sequel does not a tarnish Harper’s or the sequel’s legacy. He supports this contention by associating the success of the sequel, and the perceptions of the audience towards his contention.

The author of the opinion piece’s use of describing why the sequel was created is used to belittle the authenticity of the sequel. The author does this by the use of strong and sophisted language such as ‘foisted’ and ‘akin’ in order to sound more knowledgeable. This is to make the audience believe that what the author is saying is educated and therefore right. The author uses the ethos of the audience,  by claiming the tarnishing of Lee’s reputation was at fault because of the sequel, and claiming that the sequel was created by the public’s eagerness. This is to discredit the the authenticity of the sequel and position the reader to believe that the sequel is a completely different interpretation to the sequel.  wait.. did you analyse the original opinion piece? If so -- I'M SO SORRY! I mustn't have been clear enough: you were only required to analyse the letter to the editor disclosed. Charles Slack however uses logos by associating the success of the sequel to discredit the author’s view that the sequel tarnishes the legacy of Lee. This is done by Lee Do you mean Slack?pointing out the rows of the lines queuing for the sequel. LeeSlack further diminishes the author’s claim through the use of logos. Unnecessary repetition; you only seem to have analysed logos re: Slack's letter to the editor. Was this intentional? Should aim to analyse a variety of different techniques. He does this by poinitng that out that ‘history will place Go set a watchman in its proper context, and how to kill a mocking jay will hold it’s position as one of the most beloved works of American literature.’ By doing this, it what do you mean by "it"?dispels fear from the audience that the sequel will somehow clash with Lee’s legacy.

Charlie Slack’s letter to the editor “The tragedy of Harper Lee” sarcastically preaches of Harper Lee’s rather successive career as an author. Slack prompts the reader through metaphor what metaphor? as Lee “shatters” sale records, emphasising that Lee sold a record high amount of “Go Set a Watchman.” This reinforces that Lee is not an unsuccessful or tragedy, but someone who is known and loved by readers. He distinctly separates the books “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Go Set a Watchman” to their individual attributes what do you mean?, which inspires readers to hold “new and impassioned” conversations. This denotes the positive too general; be more specific. and eye opening experience the books have provided to readers. He continues to compliment Lee’s books as “one of the most beloved works”, which highlights the endless love and support the book holdsfeels like you've already reiterated this point several times throughout your analysis unnecessarily; avoid repetition where possible., even though it was published half a century ago. Finally, Slack ends that many aspiring writers want to “experience the same tragedy”, he sarcastically points out that Lee’s life was no tragedy, and it was such a successive career that many authors want to walk in her footsteps.All you've essentially done is paraphrased what you've already quoted leading to unnecessary repetition. AVOID. Insteaed of paraphrasing, try and ANALYSE as much as possible.

Feel free to rekt me, I need all the help I can get with eng lol

i just did the intro and one para since i wasn't too sure how to split the arguments

The release of Harper Lee’s widely anticipated sequel “Go Set a Watchman” has engendered intense debate over whether her dissipating fame is a consequence of this novel. In his opinionative article “No way to treat an author: How Harper Lee lost control of her legacy”, Washington Post? Are you referring to the original article? Questioning cos you refer to the opinion article and then refer to Slack, the writer of the letter to the editor., Charles Slack argues in a lightly satirical tone that the novel, in effect, compounds Harper Lee’s unprecedented success. Clearly as reflected by the title, the readers to whom the piece is directed are Lee’s legions of readers, although literature fanatics may welcome it to help provide them with a clearer perspective of Lee’s legacy to the world of literature.

The repetition of the adjective “beloved” to describe both novels positively avoid: "positive" or "positively" -- is too general. Be more specific.
connotes their longstanding valuehow?. By suggesting that Lee’s creations are dearly treasured and loved by readers, Slack renders Go Set a Watchman akin to To Kill a Mockingbird. Henceforth,Word check; hence-forth doesn't quite work in this context. readers are positioned to draw parallels between Lee’s works- both cherisheddoesn't flow. Slack further likens Go Set a Watchman to To Kill a Mockingbird, which he venerated through the use of the positive superlative “greatest”. Thus, by employing the word “another” to describe Lee’s second novel, he intimates it is on par with her first masterpiece, consequently inviting readers to reflect on their preconceived views towards Go Set a Watchman. sentence = rambles on too muchMoreover, the alliteration “shatters sales” alludes to the overwhelming popularity of the novel, challenging readers to reassess the worth of a supposedly subpar work. Instead, Slack manoeuvres the reader to perceive the novel as a monstrous commercial success, albeit not as sought-after as Lee’s first novel. In addition, Slack juxtaposes the true success of the novel against the common misbelief that Lee’s life purportedly transformed into “a tale of woe”. In so doing, Slack strives to accentuate the flawed logic of those who fail to acknowledge Harper’s success. Coupled with the What do I call this technique?
 3 words which are increasing in strength? In an exam setting, if you don't know the name of the technique, don't stress. Naming techniques isn't a prerequisite to doing well.“out the door, around the block and over the horizon”, Slack postulates that the desire of innumerable people is to be in Lee’s position. Hence, Slack mocks those who resist to acknowledge Harper’s success, suggesting that they exaggerated Lee’s adversity and dismissed her multifarious, unparalleled contributions to American literature.

I just ignored the bit about "lesser work", since I'm not sure how to include that- doesn't it go against what Slack is saying? 

[Anonymous]

Thank you so much to Remi and Hopeful Law Student, both of you are incred I'll fix my work up and post it Never been happier to get a notification

[Anonymous]

helloo

five years later, i edited what i wrote lol

hugee thank you to remi and hopefullawstudent- lmk if I didn't properly interpret your feedback though!

The release of Harper Lee’s widely anticipated novel “Go Set a Watchman” has provoked intense debate over whether her dissipating fame is a consequence of this novel. In his letter to the editor responding to the article “No way to treat an author: How Harper Lee lost control of her legacy”, Washington Post, Charles Slack argues in a satirical tone that the novel, in effect, does not detract from Harper Lee’s success. The piece is directed at readers who lambasted Lee’s second novel as a failure.

The repetition of the adjective “beloved” connotes both novel’s longstanding value by insinuating that generations of readers have relished in Lee’s works. By suggesting that these creations are dearly treasured and cherished by readers, Slack renders Go Set a Watchman akin to To Kill a Mockingbird. Slack further likens Go Set a Watchman to To Kill a Mockingbird, which he extols through the use of the positive superlative “greatest”. Such an extreme adjective emphasises that amidst the entire world of literature, Lee’s novels are of the highest quality and surpass the myriad of other novels. Thus, by employing the word “another” to describe Lee’s second novel, he intimates it is on par with her first novel. Consequently, Slack invites readers to reflect on their preconceived views of Go Set a Watchman as an inferior piece of literature. Moreover, the alliteration “shatters sales” accentuates the tremendous force/ power and overwhelming popularity of the novel. Readers are challenged to question why supposedly sub-par work has garnered much acclaim and thus, reassess the worth of Go Set a Watchman. Instead, Slack manoeuvres the reader to perceive the novel as a commercial success, (*What follows is a contradiction to everything I wrote above though?*) albeit not as sought-after as Lee’s first novel. By admitting that Lee’s second novel is a “lesser work”, Slack establishes common ground with readers who may have considered that his opinion was far beyond the norm and accordingly, repudiate his other arguments. Therefore, readers are invited to perceive Slack, and thus his opinion, as judicious and rational rather than extreme.  In addition, Slack juxtaposes the true triumph of the novel against the belief that Lee’s life purportedly transformed into “a tale of woe” due to her its supposed failure. In so doing, Slack accentuates the flawed logic of those who fail to acknowledge Lee’s success. Coupled with the tricolon which increases in size “out the door, around the block and over the horizon”, Slack posits that the desire of many is to be in Lee’s position. Hence, Slack mocks those who resist to acknowledge Harper’s success, suggesting that they exaggerated Lee’s adversities and dismissed her multifarious, unparalleled contributions to American literature. Therein, readers are positioned to regard their arguments as unfounded and hence, may pay no heed to their claims.

[lovelyperson]

This year, author Harper Lee unexpectedly released a sequel titled Go Set A Watchman to her famed novel Kill A Mockingbird. The Washington Post in turn has criticized the move as one based more on public demand, rather than the social activism which made the author respected and renowned in the first place. Charles however rejects this suggestion in his letter to the editor “The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee”; he argues that the author is still adored regardless and that the ‘tragedy’ which the Washington Post purports to be false.

Slack firstly argues that Harper Lee was and still is respected. Titling his piece “The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee”, Slack here seeks to associate the Washington Post’s claims with the tragedy genre, in particular its extreme element of death and dramatized nature. In doing so, the tabloid’s claims are portrayed as exaggerated, leading audiences to perceive them as therefore illogical and with low credibility. Slack’s use of a condescending tone as he says “let’s see” further reinforces this effect, as through such, he implies that the claims are clearly incorrect. Audiences are positioned to agree with this as his tone conveys a sense of authority and that he is knowledgeable enough to make an informed assessment. Having now doubted the credibility of the Washington Post’s suggestions, Slack then continues to further discredit them through highlighting how “beloved” Lee is. The intimate and deep affectionate connotations of this adjective attempts to have audience see Lee in a similar light, and in turn be opposed to what she has been accused of. This opposition is then built on by Slack as he illustrates how respected Lee is, in how she receives special treatment from Hollywood, who “instead of botching the job, sensitively translates [her] book into [a] movie”. The juxtaposition here of lackluster effort and ill attempt, as connoted through the “botch”, that is typical, and intricate detail and care conveyed through the adverb “sensitively”, highlights how differently Lee is treated from other people – positively in this case which in turn leads audiences to see her as a highly respected person. Seeing Lee with such status, they are positioned to see the Washington Post’s claim that suggests otherwise as undeniably incorrect.