I must've just started marking this before Callum posted, so I didn't see his till I'd finished. Brilliant feedback btw Callum, I LOVE that you're doing it! So you're lucky enough to get two lots of feedback
Hopefully we've covered different things. My impression (without having read the article, or spent much time on this): you think really deeply and analytically at times, I love most of it! You can always improve with a bit more of the impact on the audience, being more specific about exactly how certain words/tones/arguments/techniques make them feel or think ALL the time. But it's really great.
With increasing number of cases where technology users misuse exclamation marks, Simon Castles, a Fairfax desk writer and lecturer at University of Melbourne expresses concern at what is an “arms race ensued”. Published on the Age on May 13th 2015, Castle generally argues in a friendly albeit slightly sarcastic tone, targeting both the younger and older readership, in the form of an opinion piece. The title, “The exclamation mark is murdering the full stop!!!” is hyperbolic with word choices such as “murdering”, and is heightened by the use of three exclamation marks.
Avoid analysis in the intro; this sentence should live in the bodies. Castle also
hints at the main point of his contention contends that we should use correct punctuation in the online world because our misuse risk bringing about misunderstandings between other internet users (from lack of exclamation marks) who do correctly follow the standard punctuation.
LA intros (actually all intros) should be short and sweet. Try to develop a ‘formula’ that’s concise, like – ‘in the form of an opinion piece’ = ‘[author]’s opinion piece…’, which is shorter. Here’s a sample rewrite:
Concern has arisen at technology users’ increasing misuse of explanations. In his opinion piece, ‘The exclamation mark is murdering the full stop!!!’ (The Age, May 13 2015), Simon Castle contends that… (and I actually can’t see clearly from your intro what exactly his contention is). His friendly, albeit slightly sarcastic, tone… (blah blah blah).
In my blah blah blah section, you could also cover the major ways Castle tries to argue, or his major approaches/persuasive methods. It’s normally easy to state the overall, obvious contention, e.g. ‘the exclamation mark is overused, which is concerning’, or ‘we need high-speed trains in Australia’; anyone could state that plain obvious fact. So, you’ll stand out if you go deeper by being more specific about the individual ways the author argues. [I’m copying this chunk from another essay I marked; essentially, it depends on how you structure the essay, whether chronologically, by 'key players', or by the overall arguments/approaches. I think you did the last).
e.g. if an author was arguing for high-speed trains. They could do this in a number of different ways:
- highly emotional stories about someone who couldn't get to say their daughter's funeral because the trains were too slow
- listing terrible issues of the current system, building up fear/concern/annoyance
- ridiculing some major figure who is against high speed trains, attacking/undermining the person's credibility and thus by implication their views; trying to build anger by suggesting this person is doing stuff for their own benefits
- listing the brilliant benefits of high-speed trains
- rebutting arguments against it
You see that for each article made up of 1-3 of these approaches, you could say exactly the same overall contention. But, their overall major approaches and the ways they try to get across that contention is totally different. A low-level essay will just deal with the overall contention, 'we need high-speed trains', but a higher-level essay will notice the 2-3 major ways that the author gets their point across. (Normally, there's not just one approach – it's normally a mixture of a couple of different major approaches. Actually I've only just realised how much my method is like Lauren's key player approach, which I'd never heard of until very recently anyway.)
From the outset, Castle adopts various personas in order to appeal to the audience
not bad, because you do go on to explain more specifically further in the paragraph, but this could give the assessor a bad first impression: you sound very vague – ‘various personas’, ‘to appeal’. If you were more specific about the personas, or in what way he appeals. While you’re not trying to pack your topic sentences with irrelevant detail, if you’re a bit more specific, you’ll instantly impress the assessor. Castles
Castle’s attempt to look friendly and approachable to the readers through the use of informal and colloquial language – “Oh, OK”, “in-your-face”, “guilty as hell”. Immediately, the phrase “Oh, OK” establishes a friendly atmosphere through the use of language commonly spoken between people.
Really nice! The phrase, “in-your-face” is a made-up word constituting words that are also generally widely spoken. that doesn’t actually add anything, it just repeats what you’d just said, and then doesn’t analyse how this makes the author feel In addition, when Castle admits “the exclamation mark may not be completely responsible”, he creates a persona that he is fair-minded, and who have considered both sides of the issue. Here, he differentiates himself from many writers who hold a narrow viewpoint on the issue, disregarding other writer’s reasoning and persuasion by undermining their reputation and highlighting a flaw in their thinking.
So… does he specifically talk about other writers? Or are you just saying that his consideration of the other point of view presents him that way? If he doesn’t specifically reference other authors, I’d cut out that last sentence, it’s a bit ‘off-topic’. Castle implies that after mental conflict regarding the issue, he had decided that excessive use of exclamation marks have become a real “problem”, and hence is a better option to stand for.
Be a bit more specific – it suggests that it’s a well-thought-out stance, thoroughly considered and rational. When Castle creates a friendly persona through excessive use of informal language, Castles also attempts to satirise the majority of digital population who have lost touch with the importance of using formal, proper use language. Among the readers who have not been able understand this subtle cue, he still seems like a friendly writer, hence urging them to listen further into this point of view. However, it is also a powerful method to those who got the cue – it creates an inside/outside mentality that mock others who are seemingly oblivious to the technology-obsessed and ignorant society.
I think you had some great ideas here – it sounds like there’s some deep thought – but I can’t quite follow what you mean. Consider ways of expressing more exactly what you mean. Castle attempts to establish a basis of friendliness and fair-mindedness, hence urging the readership to agree with him.
Castle continues to separate different types of his readership through the use of negative connotations and appeals.
Good insight, always think about how it impacts different audience groups When Castles refer to the younger generation as “digital native”, he means to portray the younger generation is ignorant and lacking. The term “natives” imply individuals who are unaware of a different world that exist, and have been only exposed to one certain environment which in this case is technology.
GREAT! Analysis of the specific connotations of an individual word is always brilliant. Now, take it further – so that makes the audience feel they’re ignorant/lacking, and how does that persuade them to his overall point? By referring to the concepts such as “online chat”, Castle clearly aims to differentiate the younger and older readership, with the latter tapping into clichés surrounding the ‘youth of today’ and their incomprehensible ways. This notion is consolidated by a visual aid that accompanies the article. Two young teenager girls seem almost gleeful as they stare into their phones, oblivious to each other and the sunshine that falls on them.
You now need some deeper analysis of the image; you’ve just stated what it presents. I like that you said ‘this notion is consolidated’ because that links it to the article, but you need to do more about exactly how the image itself makes the audience feel, and in what WAY it consolidates that notion (don’t leave gaps without explaining them thoroughly!). Castle further attempts to gain support from the older readers by conveying the message that the youth of today are living in a bleak society consumed by technology unlike the ‘good old days’. Similarly, the evidence that “39 per cent” use “sentence-final punctuation” in texts, “45 per cent” in instant messaging and “even lower” 29 per cent of the time for texts, Castle aims to elicit fear of vanishing tradition in older readership, and convey that misuse of exclamation marks are indeed a problem of this era.
Recall also that in the older generation, grammar/punctuation is far more important because of how much emphasis was put on it in schools; the author (probably) draws on this background. Anyways, I really love your analysis. Beautiful.However, Castles do
es not only attempt to form an affinity with the older readers, but also with the younger reader through various appeals, references to digital technology such as “facebook” as well as rhetorical questions. When Castle asserts that “No one wants to send a text message by manual typewriter”, he
immediately aims to win support with younger readers through appeals to modernity and keeping up with a changing society. In addition, Castle claims that the misuse of exclamation marks are not purely the blame of teenagers but rather an ill-thought method to solve the challenges of “tone”, hence directing the blame to somewhere else. By partially defending the younger readership by asserting that this “problem” arose
in thought in avoid “unintentionally piss someone off” ??, the younger readers are more likely to accept his views
great; explain a bit more specifically how it’ll make them feel towards the author/issue to take it up to a higher level. Castle attempts to sympathise with the young readership through rhetorical questions such as “How come no emoji like last time?” and “Are they being ironic?” which highlight the insecurities many teenagers have.[ b]So here, this is great, but you need then a link to how this persuades or makes the readers feel.[/b] However, Castle then moves onto a sombre tone. He asks, “Once you’ve used three exclamation marks… about cereal you had… where to from there when you want to share the news of birth of your first child?” urging the reader to think about the bigger impact their seemingly little ways can have on them when they grow up, and as a society as a whole. Now, the reader is manipulated to perceive the exclamation marks as bot being a small issue, but affecting out future, and hence made to agree that exclamation marks (and punctuation)
avoid brackets in formal writing must be used properly, and responsibly.
Castle’s opinion piece, “The exclamation mark is murdering the full stop!!!” suffered from an imbalance of logical evidence and emotional targeting – suffering from the excess of the latter, while lacking the other. While he attempts to connect with various audience groups such as older and younger readership, it was rather unsuccessful at fully persuading either of the audience group.
DEFINITELY iNT’s comment was true. It’s language analysis, not evaluation. You can’t evaluate or judge how effective it is. Instead, summarise the main thrust/contention/overall method of arguing he uses.
Great effort, let me know if you have any questions! Haven't given you really detailed feedback, hope it still helps.