This is my first time posting in the AA club forum, but I'll give this a shot! These are all suggestions, so you don't have to agree
Thanks guys! I would really appreciate some feedback!
In response to Donald Trump’s exasperating language in his Twitter comments, James A. Duthie writes a letter to the editor. By employing a condemnatory tone and expressing disapproval of Twitter, Duthie contends "contends" is a bit neutral - is there a better word? that Twitter executives should ban the US President’s comments to be published in public, in order to ensure global security, instead of welcoming such comments for the sake of gaining profit. I think you can be a bit less wordy, maybe Duthie advocates for the ban of Donald Trump's public Twitter comments in order to ensure global security and criticises the executive authorities' desire to gain profit
With the intent of Evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their quiet/docilewhat type of acceptance - I think here is a chance to include a good adjectiveacceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.” This war-like imagery connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasising the dangerous nature of Trump’s comments which would trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising I wouldn't exactly call it a hyperbole - maybe an analogy? in “pool of gasoline” aims to instils feelings of insecurity in Twitter executives through which they are compelled and hence, compelling them to block Trump’s public tweets, for this will ensure a peaceful world where suffering is far from apparent. this seems a bit random? maybe create a clearer link?
Claiming that the juxtaposition seems “apt” even “today,” Duthie intends to present two seemingly important world leaders – Trump and Kim Jong-un, as criminals whose "irrationality" and exchanges of "trading insults" have caused present day global terrors, through their “irrationality” and exchanges of “trading insults.” <-- this sentence seems more like a summary, not really an analysis Peppered with negative connotations through these labels and fueled by the abruption in the connotation of the adjective “incendiary,” really wordy Duthie seeks to appeal to Twitter’s responsibility as a social media platform who must ensure threats to global security are not visible to the general public so to avoid further panicking do not provoke further paranoid within the general public. <--this sentence seems super long so it was a bit difficult to read, maybe shorten it?Using informal diction in “bottom line” to appeal finer sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'finer' to his readership of...who is his audience?, Duthie attempts to present Twitter as a selfish medium who is hungry for profits at the expense of global security who compromises global security for monetary gain. By attacking their reputation with a diplomatic concern, Duthie aims to pressure Twitter executives to ban Trump’s unfavorable tweets as they do not cater for peace-keeping.
Through Duthie’s dysphemistic portrayal of Twitter as “luna[tic]” – its connotations of madness and mental insanity – he presents Twitter as an ill-minded abettor of Trump’s threatening comments. Whilst this aims to provoke unease in Twitter executives’ minds, Duthie’s employing of the pun in the verb “trump” endeavors to seek attention to his questioning of [bmagnifies[/b] the absurd logic in Twitter’s selfishdesire for profits in the belief that their selfishness believing that it would not impact global security.<-- sentence was a bit long Further questioning which “world” Twitter executives “live in,” Duthie seeks to alienate attacks the executives for their carelessness in blocking tweets that deem global insecurity, thus warning the social medium of the ignoring the“risk” they are “entail[ing]” in going against its users’ expectations of a safe online space free from Trump’s menacing and provocativetweets. <-- another long sentenceThis aims to encourage Twitter to block such threats, Duthie’s overall message. <-- to be honest, this sentence is a bit redundant, try add in something so that it actually contributes a bit more to your analysis
Some notes:
- you have some rather fancy language, which is pretty nice, but sometimes you're a bit wordy
- you tend to write "aims to, intends to, seeks to" etc. which demonstrates authorial intent. There is nothing wrong with this, however, it makes some of your sentences more wordy. It's okay to sometimes leave out these words and just write "the author provokes" instead of "the author attempts to provoke"
- you've focused a lot on authorial intent, which is good, so good job! However, try to incorporate a bit more of audience reaction. How is the audience likely to react? How does the author want them to react?
- you have a lot of long sentences, which may become quite wordy and complicated. Try varying your sentence length a bit more and being a bit more succinct
- in this analysis, you focused a lot on the Twitter executives, however, keeping in that the audience of this letter to the audience will also include the general public, I think you should focus more importantly on how the audience wants his actual audience i.e the general public to react. For example, you mentioned that he was trying to evoke fear and guilt in Twitter executives, however, he was also inciting fear in the public and hence, positioning the audience to condemn Twitter for permitting Trump to public inflammatory comments, which in turns compels Twitter to act. - I hope this part makes sense!
Hope this was useful!