chrisjb's thread- February Week 2

[chrisjb]

What up VN english?

Texts: Maestro, On The Waterfront
Context: Encountering conflict (The Rugmaker of Mazar-E-Sharif, The Crucible)

English Aim: +45

Also, I'm likely to miss the last two weeks of january, so when I don't post anything in here don't worry, I'll pick it up at febuary.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[chrisjb]

Language Analysis Week 3

Andrew Bolt’s opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (Herald Sun, December 17, 2010) deals with the recent episode of the ongoing issue of how government policy can deter ‘boat people’ or otherwise deal with asylum seekers. Bolt contends that the Gillard government’s asylum seeker laws are too lax and this is the indirect cause of the ‘christmas island tragedy’. Primarily, Bolt contends this in a rational tone, however he does adopt sarcasm and, indeed, passionate tones in various sections of his article.

Bolt aims to create segregation between his audience and what is presented in his article as the opposing view. Exclusive language is employed heavily by Bolt in his piece in an aim to create this polarisation. Perhaps the most blatant of these exclusive terms is Bolt’s continual use of the phrase ‘they lie’, as well as the pejorative ‘leftist’. Bolt uses these terms in aim to create a “them and us” mentality amongst his readers and promote distaste for the other side. The broad aim of polarising is further displayed by Bolt in his headline which reads ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’. From this readers are predisposition from the start of the article to understand that two opposite sides exist- that of Bolt and that of Julia Gillard’s government. Further, this headline places the burden of blame on the head of Bolt’s opponent and, to a certain extent implies that Bolt’s school of thinking has been victimised by being previously blamed. This begins subtle mental ‘side taking’ within Bolt’s audience and when later paired with Bolt’s exclusive language creates the strong ‘them and us mentality’ for which Bolt aims.

The crux of Bolt’s article rests on personal attacks of Julia Gillard and her Labor government. In the article Bolt reasons with his viewers that it is ‘Gillard’s weak laws’ that have ‘killed so many’ and repeatedly implies that Gillard’s Government’s ‘soft policies’ which are metaphorically referred to as ‘sugar’ are the substantial indirect cause of the Christmas Island boat crash. The aim of these personal attacks are to suggest to the reader that the opposing side’s view is inherently weak and unsubstantiated. In addition to this, Bolt employs the use of strongly emotive phrases to trigger not only a distaste for Gillard, but a passionate choler against her. Terms such as ‘tempted to their deaths’, ‘tragedy’ and ‘criminally reckless’ which are used in conjunction with attacks on Gillard and her government heighten the importance of the issue and promote a sense of hatred amongst the readers who are invited to believe that Gillard has acted inhumanely.

In conjunction with this, Bolt promotes his own views in regards to asylum seeker policy as being superior to Gillard’s through the use of logic-based expression and techniques. Bolt uses quotes from secondary sources including newspapers and the ABC to show support for his point of view from apparently independent, unbiased sources. Bolt follows this line of technique further when he states that the number of boat arrivals in Australia was rising ‘from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone.” The use of such statistics and logic is likely to appeal to a variety of readers, including those who may be alienated by strong emotive or passionate appeals.

In addition to the text based techniques employed by Bolt, a visual image is employed. The image which appears at the head of the article shows the boat in question as it experiences rough seas off Christmas Island. The image is likely taken from Television footage of the incident, and therefore it already has a number of connotations which would exist in readers. The image is likely to conjure a sense of fear for the people in the boat. This is a likely aim of the image as the crashing waves in the background, pointy rocks at the bottom of the frame and fragile structure of the vessel itself all suggest a dire consequence. As well as fear, maternalistic or paternalistic predispositions might be exposed by the image. These predispositions are especially able to be conjured by the image as readers are likely to focus on the boat and it’s barely visible passengers and recall incidents of similar incidents involving child asylum seekers. The raw emotion of the reader is then channelled by the text at the top left corner of the frame. The text contends that the Labor government is ‘encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea’. When readers read this line it is likely that they may scapegoat the government and burden them with blame for the plight of the asylum seekers in the picture.

Bolt’s article uses passionate and carefully crafted language to create a sense of polarisation whereby his readers are invited to disagree to an extreme with what is presented as the opposing viewpoint. Bolt then is able to create in the reader a sense that the opposing view is wholly incorrect and, through the use of logic and reasoning imply that his view is wholly supported by facts and evidence. In all, Bolt summarily turns his readers away from all opposing views and then presents his own as the correct one and the view that ought to be followed by his readers.


So, I'm gonna gather the feedbacks here below my piece each week so that I can quickly see what I need to practice and improve on.

1) Don't forget the target audience [quite a silly mistake on my part]
2) Watch out for coloquial and informal language
3) Be more concise and refine expression
4) Avoid passive tone
5) Avoid unnessicary rhetoric
6) Mix up vocab and avoid using the same words over and over (I am actualy very aware of this problem when I'm writing but seem to get stuck in a rut once I find a word that works well)
7) Deeper analysis
Don't forget to mention the effect on the reader
9) remember to re-read my work (this had a lot of little grammar mistakes I should have picked up on)
10) don't be too absolute

[pi]

Its quite well written!
A few things to work on though:
- Try and establish a target audience (although it was hard in this case)
- I would have tried a different phrase from 'boat people' in the context sentence (even though it is in quotation marks)
- I wouldn't add this line: 'The image is likely taken from Television footage of the incident, and therefore it already has a number of connotations which would exist in readers.' As it may just be a photo and probably has not seen by most of the audience


Overall a strong response though, 8/10

[Ghost!]

- Try and establish a target audience (although it was hard in this case)

Yep, you always need to state who the audience is. Most of the time you'll be able to come up with someone, but if you can't just say the 'general public, specifically those with an interest in _______.' To fill in the space, just label whatever the subject of the article is;

ie - the general public, specifically those with an interest in immigration issues.

[werdna]

I'll underline key sections and discuss these in red. Rewording will be in green.

Andrew Bolt’s opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (Herald Sun, December 17, 2010) deals with the recent episode of the Be as concise as possible. The sentence didn't make sense with this here. ongoing issue of how government policy can deter ‘boat people’ or otherwise deal with asylum seekers. Bolt contends that the Gillard government’s asylum seeker laws are too lax and this , as he argues, is the indirect cause of the ‘christmas island tragedy’. Primarily, Bolt contends this in a rational tone Weak expression. , however he does adopt sarcasm and, indeed, passionate tones in various sections of his article.

Bolt aims to create segregation between his audience and what is presented in his article as the opposing view. Confusing - watch your expression. Exclusive language is employed heavily by Bolt Avoid writing in the passive voice. in his piece in an aim to create this polarisation. Perhaps Always be assured and controlled with your writing. Here, it sounds like you're unsure of your own analysis. the most blatant of these exclusive terms is Bolt’s continual use of the phrase ‘they lie’, as well as the pejorative ‘leftist’ Discuss this further. There are connotations behind this, which you could discuss. . Bolt uses these terms in aim a bid to create a “them and us” mentality amongst his readers and promote distaste for the other side. The broad aim of polarising is further displayed by Bolt Again, avoid writing in the passive voice. Make Bolt the subject, not the object, of your statements. in his headline which reads ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’. From this readers are predisposition from the start of the article to understand that two opposite sides exist- that of Bolt and that of Julia Gillard’s government. Further, this headline places the burden of blame on the head of Bolt’s opponent and, to a certain extent implies that Bolt’s school of thinking has been victimised by being previously blamed. This begins subtle mental ‘side taking’ within Bolt’s audience and when later paired with Bolt’s exclusive language creates the strong ‘them and us mentality’ for which Bolt aims. .. which makes readers feel...?

The crux of Bolt’s article rests on personal attacks of Julia Gillard and her Labor government. In the article Bolt reasons with his viewers Wrong target audience? that it is ‘Gillard’s weak laws’ that have ‘killed so many’ and repeatedly implies that Gillard’s Government’s ‘soft policies’ which are metaphorically referred to as ‘sugar’ are the substantial indirect cause of the Christmas Island boat crash. The aim of these personal attacks are Watch your plurals and singulars. It should be 'is' here. to suggest to the reader that the opposing side’s view is inherently weak and unsubstantiated. In addition to this, Bolt employs the use of strongly emotive phrases to trigger not only a distaste for Gillard, but a passionate choler against her. Terms such as ‘tempted to their deaths’, ‘tragedy’ and ‘criminally reckless’ which are used in conjunction with attacks on Gillard and her government heighten the importance of the issue Unnecessary and adds nothing to your analysis. and promote a sense of hatred amongst the readers who are invited to believe that Gillard has acted inhumanely.

In conjunction with this, Bolt promotes his own views in regards to asylum seeker policy as being superior to Gillard’s through the use of logic-based expression and techniques. Bolt uses quotes from secondary sources including newspapers and the ABC to show support for his point of view from apparently independent, unbiased sources. Bolt follows this line of technique further when he states that the number of boat arrivals in Australia was rising ‘from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone.” The use of such statistics and logic is likely to appeal to a variety of readers, including those who may be alienated by strong emotive or passionate appeals.

In addition to the text based techniques employed by Bolt, a visual image is employed Avoid the passive voice. . The image which appears at the head of the article shows the boat in question as it experiences rough seas off Christmas Island. The image is likely to have been taken from Television footage of the incident, and therefore it already has a number of connotations which would exist in readers. The image is likely to conjure a sense of fear for the people in the boat. This is a likely aim In an analysis, you cannot be too absolute with the intended effect. But here, I think you're being way too un-absolute in your analysis - which makes you, as the writer, seem unassured and confused. of the image as the crashing waves in the background, pointy rocks at the bottom of the frame and fragile structure of the vessel itself all suggest a dire consequence. As well as fear, maternalistic or paternalistic predispositions might be exposed by the image. This is a good point. Discuss it further. These predispositions You use this word way too often! are especially able to be conjured by the image Poor expression. Don't readers dis/agree with something in the newspaper on their own accord? You make it seem as though it's something they have to do, and have to try to do, if that makes sense. as readers are likely to focus on the boat and it’s its barely visible passengers and recall incidents of similar incidents involving child asylum seekers. The raw emotion of the reader is then channelled by the text at the top left corner of the frame. The text contends The text doesn't contend, the writer does. that the Labor government is ‘encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea’ Don't simplify Bolt's contention right down to one quote and one statement. His contention is far deeper than this. . When readers read this line Avoid. it is likely that they may scapegoat the government and burden them with blame for the plight of the asylum seekers in the picture.

Bolt’s article uses passionate and carefully crafted Don't evaluate. language to create a sense of polarisation whereby his readers are invited to disagree to an extreme with what is presented as the opposing viewpoint. Bolt then is is then able to create in the reader a sense Bad expression here. that the opposing view is wholly incorrect and, through the use of logic and reasoning imply that his view is wholly supported by facts and evidence. In all, Bolt summarily turns his readers away from all opposing views Don't be absolute and certain with the intended effect, as any reading audience of any article would have people with very different interpretations. and then presents his own as the correct one and the view that ought to be followed by his readers.

A solid effort - there are some major expression problems in your essay, which I think you should try and work on. Also try and mix up your vocabulary a bit too - by this, I don't mean learning huge and complicated words - just learn some simple, concise new words to avoid repeating "predeposition" and "the use of" so many times. But, in saying this, you can actually avoid saying "the use of" and cut it out of your sentences, and voila, your sentences suddenly read far more smoothly. Also note that I was being slightly harsh in my marking, hence the score.

Final score: 6.5/10.

[brightsky]

Andrew Bolt’s opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (Herald Sun, December 17, 2010) deals with the recent episode of the ongoing issue of how government policy can deter ‘boat people’ or otherwise deal with asylum seekers. A bit convoluted.Bolt contends that the Gillard government’s asylum seeker laws are too lax and this is the indirect cause of the ‘christmas island tragedy’. This isn't really the main contention of the article, he wants something done.Primarily, Bolt contends this in a rational tone, however he does adopt sarcasm and, indeed, passionate tones in various sections of his article.Bad introduction of tone IMO. Also, a bit unnecessarily complicated. The way you write it, it seems as though there is no real purpose of the author using that specific tone. The conventional intro is good, "In a rational but passionate tone, Bolt contends that..."

Bolt aims to create segregation between his audience and what is presented in his article as the opposing view. Exclusive language is employed heavily by Bolt in his piece in an aimIn an aim sounds awks. Try something like "with the aim". to create this polarisation. Perhaps the most blatant of these exclusive terms is Bolt’s continual use of the phrase ‘they lie’, as well as the pejorative ‘leftist’. Bolt uses these terms in aim to create a “them and us” mentality amongst his readers and promote distaste for the other side. This is good, though your missing that little bit extra in your explaining exactly HOW the use of exclusive language works.The broad aim of polarising is further displayed by Bolt in his headline which reads ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’. From this readers are predisposition Doesn't make sense.from the start of the article to understand that two opposite sides exist- that of Bolt and that of Julia Gillard’s government. Now this is getting a bit repetitive.Further, this headline places the burden of blame on the head of Bolt’s opponent and, to a certain extent implies that Bolt’s school of thinking has been victimised by being previously blamed. This begins subtle mental ‘side taking’ within Bolt’s audience and when later paired with Bolt’s exclusive language creates the strong ‘them and us mentality’ for which Bolt aims. Oh I love this last line.

The crux of Bolt’s article rests on personal attacks of Julia Gillard and her Labor government. In the article Bolt reasons with his viewers that it is ‘Gillard’s weak laws’ that have ‘killed so many’ and repeatedly implies that Gillard’s Government’s ‘soft policies’ which are metaphorically referred to as ‘sugar’ are the substantial indirect cause of the Christmas Island boat crash. The aim of these personal attacks are to suggest to the reader that the opposing side’s view is inherently weak and unsubstantiated. In addition to this, Bolt employs the use of strongly emotive phrases to trigger not only a distaste for Gillard, but a passionate choler against her. Terms such as ‘tempted to their deaths’, ‘tragedy’ and ‘criminally reckless’ which are used in conjunction with attacks on Gillard and her government heighten the importance of the issue and promote a sense of hatred amongst the readers who are invited to believe that Gillard has acted inhumanely.

In conjunction with this, Bolt promotes his own views in regards to asylum seeker policy as being superior to Gillard’s through the use of logic-based expression and techniques.Sounds like you're namedropping. Introduce it differently, or refrain from being too explicit. Bolt uses quotes from secondary sources including newspapers and the ABC to show support for his point of view from apparently independent, unbiased sources. So? What does this do? Why is the audience inclined to believe unbiased sources more? It's obvious, but you indispensable.Bolt follows this line of technique further when he states that the number of boat arrivals in Australia was rising ‘from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone.” The use of such statistics and logic is likely to appeal to a variety of readers, including those who may be alienated by strong emotive or passionate appeals.This is a bit eh.

In addition to the text based techniques employed by Bolt, a visual image is employedEmployed? Wrong word.. The image which appears at the head of the articleMinor thing, but I don't think describing the location is really necessary unless it promotes your analysis in some way. shows the boat in question as it experiences rough seas off Christmas Island. The image is likely taken from Television footage of the incident, and therefore it already has a number of connotations which would exist in readers. A bit colloquial. Also the tone here doesn't really match the rest of your essay.The image is likely to conjure a sense of fear for the people in the boatEXTEND ON THIS. Why does it conjure fear?. This is a likely aim of the image Just say it. This is your analysis - don't say 'likely'. Your interpretation is what examiners want.as the crashing waves in the background, pointy rocks at the bottom of the frame and fragile structure of the vessel itself all suggest a dire consequenceDon't think consequence is the right word here, but that's probably just me.. As well as fear, maternalistic or paternalistic predispositions might be exposed by the image. Fragmentary sentence. Sounds strained. Also, jargon is bad. Don't just say 'maternalistic, paternalistic predispositions' without ensuring readers know exactly what your talking about. Sometimes prolixity can guise real meaning.These predispositions I got a feeling you're using predispositions wrongly.are especially able to be conjured by the image as readers are likely to focus on the boat and it’s barely visible passengers and recall incidents of similar incidents involving child asylum seekers. The raw emotion of the reader is then channelled by the text Channelled by the text at?at the top left corner of the frame. The text contends that the Labor government is ‘encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea’. When readers read this line Colloquial.it is likely that they may scapegoat the government and burden them with blame for the plight of the asylum seekers in the picture.

Bolt’s article uses passionate and carefully crafted language to create a sense of polarisation whereby his readers are invited to disagree to an extreme with what is presented as the opposing viewpoint. Wordy, but still ok.Bolt then is able to create in the reader a sense that the opposing view is wholly incorrect and, through the use of logic and reasoning imply that his view is wholly supported by facts and evidence. And hence...?In allYou mean all in all., Bolt summarily turns his readers away from all opposing viewsdissuade, deter, etc. might be good words to use here. and then presents his own as the correct one and the view that ought to be followed by his readers.

Overall a pretty cohesive essay, although there are some instances where sophisticated vocabulary is a bit out of place and can tarnish the actual clarity of your piece. The language you use throughout the analysis is good, but it kind of crumbled a bit towards the end, where it turned more towards the colloquial side. Remember, always use formal and analytical language. Again, not sure on how VCAA marks these essays and hence I wouldn't quote me on this score, but at this stage, I'm thinking around 7/10.

[werdna]

Oh, I don't think I made myself clear before. I was supposed to say: Don't be absolute with the intended effects, as  you can never be absolutely certain that an audience will react in a certain way.