1. I think your contention in the beginning is
technology. However, as you progress throughout the essay, you argue that "the reader is encouraged to expel any consideration that the digital world could ever bring about positive change" and they "lose trust in digital communication", which feels like you're arguing more on the side that digital communication is
bad and useless - whereas (IMO) the article felt more like it was about how even though there are merits to digital communication, ultimately nothing beats the real deal. In his last line, he puts the word "only" in italics - emphasising that digital communication is not bad, just bad by itself. I think this should be emphasised a little more in your analysis.
2. Your vocab is amazing (i had to google some words if I'm being honest). But (personally) I think you might be in danger in using a bit tooo many fancy words, although others might disagree. Some sentences are unnecessarily long-winded and some words could easily be replaced by more everyday language (e.g. "in opposition to that", rather than "diametric to that"). Don't worry, this is a critique I often got and it's only when reading other's essays that I realise my teacher had a point
essay
In response to the imposed period of self-isolation, Frank Bruni laments the lack of physical human transaction in his opinion piece titled 'We're Not Wired to Be This Alone', published in The New York Times on April 1st, 2020. Bruni yearnfully asserts the imperative nature of palpable face-to-faceinteractions as superseding the artificiality of baseless technology meetings. Here's what I mean by simpler sentences - as you've already criticised technology for being artificial, baseless can be used later!Focused towards individuals forced to face the banality of quarantine confinement, the author mourns the loss of meaningful interactions by tracking his personal journey from allusion to awareness, as well as repudiating the purported benefits of the online world. Very nice! You've subtly divided your points into paragraphs.
By employing a personal anecdote in the outset, Bruni seeks to scrutinise his own authentic experience from a vantage point of retrospect. Nice!His former surprise when mankind "quickly and ingeniously adapted" in the current lockdown betrays the whirlwind of emotional distress that contributed to his initial naïve perception of the situation. The qualifier "quickly" connotes a fast-paced set of actions that lack any rationalised thoughts, allowing the author to excogitate his previously delusional Delusional is a very strong word. I feel like what you're trying to say is that the lockdown happened so quickly there was no time to process - naively, we thought tech was good enough. Now upon reflection the author realises it isn't. This could expressed a little more clearly. mindset. Thus, he invites the reader to relate to his experience, as well as closely examine their own thoughts following "the orders to avoid travel." Analogous to this, Bruni's use of the lexeme "Abracadabra" reveals how the benefits of the online world are indeed deceiving; similar to how a magician emulates seemingly impressive magic through trickery and dishonesty.This kind of close analysis is AMAZING - exactly what the examiners look out for As a result, the author's readership is encouraged to regard the situation like a magician's audience - those who are initially impressed by the possibilities achieved through technology, however lose their admiration and respect once it's founding conceit has been revealed. Bruni thus endeavours to undermine any interaction that does not occur in the physical realm. Echoing these sentiments, the author juxtaposes the physical and online worlds when sarcastically highlighting the impossibility of substituting "happy hour" with the inferior "Facetime." He belittles the impracticality of online applications, and the reader is inclined to react with disgust at the ludicrous notion that an event whose zealous nature stems from very interaction could ever be held online. Bruni's blatant statement that "weeks later, [he] thinks the opposite" is a stark contrast that signals a pivot point in his article as he reflects upon his misunderstanding that technology could easily replace tangibility. By segueing into a state of awareness, Bruni encourages the reader to reflect upon their own experiences when confinement severely restricted all interaction, and the ramifications of this. Moreover, the author substantiates his argument that human to human meetings are vital. He does this by drawing upon his friends and colleagues' situations add in a quotation to support thisas a defence against the possible limitations of relying solely on his subjective personal anecdote. Therein, Bruni universalises his story, which exemplifies the credibility of his writing and positions those also facing confinement to accept it as the truth.
In the same vein, the author grieves the eccentricity associated with face-to-face relationships, which he only recognises due to the restrictions of "lockdown." Bruni acknowledges his "exponential" improvement in learning "emoticons and emojis", which suggests that there exists a myriad of options available to convey what now cannot be expressed with normality - human emotions. Diametric to this, the author however laments his inability to convey "the melting warmth of a flesh-and-blood smile." The implicitly yearnful undertones of this truth aims to imbalance the reader's false security in the belief that mere illustrations on a device could convey anything meaningful. Here's where close analysis could be added in. Why does it come across as yearnful? Because of the words "melting warmth". Warmth is associated with positivity, light, connection.Therefore, the reader is more likely to share the author's wishful longing for a means to divulge their feelings. Likewise, the ironic "strain" faced by Facebook "adapting to working from home" exhibits the inextricable difficulty that even those whose lives revolve around digital technology must combat.Nice! Thereby, the readership is encouraged to accept that any individual will be unable to maintain relationships and conversation online. This corroborates Bruni's contention that the multi-faceted nature of physicality cannot wholly? be replaced by two-dimensional devices. The article's accompanying visual depicts an isolated individual focused solely on his laptop; a lonely setting that is likely to be intrinsically unappealing to the reader due to the human need to socialise. The ascending stairs exhibit a gradient from light to dark. This casting shadow shows the downward plunge into darkness people take when they choose to rely upon technology. Additionally, the man's jacket - his only source of protection - lies discarded beside him. Could you also mention how the man is sitting in what looks to be a public place, but his only source of interaction is technology?Bruni thus highlights the pervasive sense of isolation that still exists despite the seemingly inviting world of technology dangers that are now exposed to those who replace tangibility with artificial devices sense of danger is something you talk a it about later, with illness I believe . The reader is encouraged to expel any consideration that the digital world could ever bring as muchabout positive change as face-to-face interaction could. Bolstering this idea, Bruni also elucidates that "the champions of digital connection" themselves do not support the decision to fully transition to a digital medium. By drawing upon the authority of these digital experts, Bruni intimates the fallacy present in the perceived benefits of digital usage, and implies that in actuality, these advantages are fabricated and founded by deception. Or is it more that they were not made to single-handedly replace interaction altogether? Not necessarily founded by deception, but a genuine lack of ability to make up for the real dealThus, the false premises of these companies are established, as they should be promoting online transition rather than regarding it adversely. This is done in the interest of the reader to lose trust within these companies, and ultimately in the entirety of all applications accessed on the internet.
Additionally, Bruni's reference to physical separation as "unnatural" and "unhealthy" foreshadows problematic consequences of separation. Thus, he attempts to invoke a sense of danger by appealing to the reader's innate tendency to circumvent jeopardy - implied by these negative lifestyle descriptors - at all costs. As such, his readership is positioned to express strong repulsion and acrimony towards any form of separation that inhibits interaction. This aversion is exacerbated by the statistical implications predicted by "scientists and policymakers" in the elderly - "heart disease, stroke [and] dementia." These health issues bolster the author's attempt to further delineate the hazardous perils that could arise due to wholeheartedly relying upon pure technology to maintain sociability. The gravity of the situation is exemplified by the credentials of this expert advice from an "epidemiologist", as well as the author's fear-mongering approach in asserting the risks of "loneliness". This implies that exigent action is required if the reader wishes to circumvent the corollaries of this novel trend that involves a heavy reliance upon devices. Furthermore, by alluding to the "unanswerable" question regarding the ability of "creative and consistent" digital communication to "mitigate… negative outcomes", Bruni establishes ambiguity. This eerie uncertainty is designed to unnerve the reader, as even "science" cannot provide an explanation. To this end, the author's readership is likely to experience a sense of insecurity and lose trust in digital communication. The reader is also likely to share the author's grief as they are prompted to recall events where physicality communicated what could not be expressed in mere words. Bruni substantiates this loss with Blazer's statement that "intimacy" is formed by "just putting a hand on [one's] arm." By metaphorically equating digital communication to "processed food", a sentiment compounded by Holt-Lunstand, Bruni cautiously acknowledges that online communication does have a place in this world, however forcefully declares it is no substitute for physical interaction. Another opportunity for close analysis - typically processed food evokes ideas like unhealthiness and guilt and most of all, it's unfulfilling. You add this in by saying, "like processed food which is unfulflling and unhealthy by nature, technology is no substitute for physical interaction" Akin to healthy food, he suggests that interactions that are physical in nature takes precedence over the unhealthy nature of technological interactions. Through this suggestion, he invites the reader to consider the harmful ramifications of digital technology in the long-term as it is no "substitute" for human to human meetings.
The mournful, provocative phrase at the conclusion of Bruni's article; "when we clink glasses virtually, they don’t make a sound", seeks to galvanise readers in a collective, reformist effort to excoriate technological communication. It is a final juxtaposition of the "clink" of glasses and the inability to audibly experience it - a stark reminder of what has been lost from a downward spiral into cyberspace. Ultimately, the reader is disposed to espouse Bruni's contention that the digital world is a source of false security and should not be relied on, as he laments what can only be accessed by palpable interaction.
Home
Help
Search
Login
