Great initiative!
Is it okay if I try and join in, despite my noobishness? :D
No matter whether you’re scoring 2/10 or 10/10, I’d love you to join. This is for all! If you think you’re hopeless, don’t feel shy about posting your piece, we won’t judge; and don’t be scared to give feedback, it’ll still help someone, and even more yourself.
I'm hoping for lots of support guys, to reiterate, all welcome and the more the merrier :DProbably just a few inconsistent posts, so it'd be the latter.
@AspiringDoc, are you going officially on my spreadsheet or just going to join in and post randomly when you feel like it?
Probably just a few inconsistent posts, so it'd be the latter.Hmm, prize. I thought of that, but I couldn't come up with any that can be delivered via the internet :P Any ideas?
UNLESS of course you get a prize, and it's done by year levels, in which case put me in!! :D
I'm keen! Any incentive to actually write a language analysis is good for me :)Added to spreadsheet :)
I'm in :) Sounds like a great ideaAwesome :))
I'm in , sounds like a good idea to me :)
Sounds like a great idea, I'd love to be a part of it :)
Here's my first analysis on "This ordinary bloke has finally had enough".. (Hope this is what I was supposed to do ;))
Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me feedback :)
Awesome idea! Count me in - will post a piece (hopefully) tonightAdded, hooray :D
This is my attempt at the first piece! Ashamed to admit how long it took me...
This ordinary bloke has finally had enoughSpoilerAustralia’s corrupt and immoral political system has been attacked by Greg Trenton in his opinion piece, posted on The Age entitled ‘this ordinary bloke has finally had enough’. In a frustrated and outraged tone, Trenton contends to his readership that politicians are taking advantage of the nation’s despondence to protect their own interests, and abuse ‘ordinary Aussies’, ultimately seeking to position readers to fight against the political leaders.
The writer first moves to criticise the ‘brazen’ abuse of the legal system by Australia’s political leaders. Immediately positioning himself as an ‘ordinary bloke’ whose ‘400k mortgage’ and family life place him in circumstances similar to those of many Australians, Trenton seeks to implicitly align himself alongside his audience through identifying with shared values to gain favour. This aims to make readers feel that the writer understands the concerns of his readership, and so positions them to be more receptive to his contention. Lamenting that he is ‘sick of being taken for an idiot’, Trenton asserts that Australia’s public is being manipulated by self-centred politicians, leading readers to feel cheated by the poor behaviour of politicians and frustrated by their ‘abuse’ of perks. In this manner, by invoking dissent amongst his readers, Trenton may compel his audience to ‘finally’ take action against the political system.
Moreover, the writer then seeks to denounce the treatment on asylum seekers by the government. Indirectly referencing the offshore detention scheme by highlighting the ‘ordinary Aussies’ that arrive in Australia ‘from camps…set up on islands’, the writer immediately seeks to contradict the government’s stance and identify asylum seekers as ‘ordinary’, and not the ‘baddies’ they are purported to be. This appeals to the audience’s sense of justice, as they are led to oppose the poor treatment of refugees by the government, and instead seek a humane alternative. Furthermore, the writer seeks to instil a sense of culpability in his readers by asserting that offshore detention has been created to ‘protect me’. The use of the exclusive personal pronoun ‘me’ aims to emphasise his personal blame and convey to readers that each individual’s lack of action perpetrates the ‘abuse of kids’ in ‘gulags’, ultimately inviting readers to admit an individual accountability and move to voice criticisms of the scheme.
Would I be allowed to join? I'd probably post casually in these coming school holidays since I had plans on learning how to write a LA essay since my school just made us do an oral on LA.
My first couple attempts will probably be atrociously bad as a warning :P
Sounds like a great idea, I'd love to be a part of it :)
Here's my first analysis on "This ordinary bloke has finally had enough".. (Hope this is what I was supposed to do ;))
Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me feedback :)
Can I join? Although I might only post occasionally
I'm just going to submit my analysis here before I lose my nerves again
Well, here goes (Embarrassingly, it took me a few hours to do):
Hey
I;m joining in, add me to the excel spreadsheet.
Do I start from week 1 or do i do this week's one?
Any feedback is welcomed, in year 12 or not, feel free to help out.Here is some feedback.
Edit: Language Analysis of the article above.
Here is splash-tackle-flail's feedback. Hope I helped you in some way.
This is my la on this weeks piece.
My first attempt at writing a piece on AN. Although I was very terrified and reluctant, I highly recommend others to join in because it felt great to write, well, something.
My first attempt at writing a piece on AN. Although I was very terrified and reluctant, I highly recommend others to join in because it felt great to write, well, something. Any feedback is welcomed. Cheers :)
Also I would've placed my essay in a spoiler tab but I don't know how to lol.
some feedback for you:
You have no idea how happy I am after I received your feedback. It's a great feeling :D
edit: I've got no idea why there's a line through it, disregard that
Fixed! (It happens when you put square brackets round an 's' when you're modifying a quote from the piece, e.g. profit[ s ])
Hey,
Sorry I'm yet to post. ::)
Anyways, I was just wondering, in a lot of the feedback a common theme has been "don't be writing unnecessarily long and wordy sentences".
So I get that it flows much nicer I you don't but the reason I do it is because I'm always short of ideas of what to write, so I kind of dawdle.. How to combat this?
Thanks :D
sorry I'm a bit late with this guys, got caught up doing other things but here goes
this is also my first time posting on the forums *cue nerves*
and embarrassingly, it took longer than I care to admit :s
My Week 2 piece:SpoilerTobacco companies' recent attempt to gain access to confidential survey data regarding teenagers' smoking habits and purchases has sparked widespread concern as explicated by medical practitioner Graham Lum's letter to the editor.Although context is important keep it short and relevant. This is pretty good but I personally wouldn’t want it any longer. Keep the ideas, just make it as concise as possible. Lum contends that tobacco companies' targeting of "children" is immoral and should warrant shame and concern. The way in which you’ve outlined your contention is good, just be aware that double barreled contentions can sometimes get a bit messy. Lum adopts an authoritarian approach to vehemently reject the tobacco industry's "shameful" approach to expanding their clientele. You’ve covered everything you need to here well done.
Graham Lum makes no attempt to hide his bias having been a "medical practitioner for half a century", using his expertise in the medical field to validate his view that smoking is "nothing short of evil". Lum's choice to open his letter with this statement instantly provokes readers to see his subsequent arguments as credible and worthy of their consideration. Lovely, but a little long-winded in my opinion. Furthermore, his condemnation of smoking plays on the negative connotations of the word "evil", suggesting to the reader that tobacco companies have a malicious agenda and that smoking habits are worthy of our concern. Good to see you zooming in. Just be aware that you can’t possibly go into this much depth on everything, so be selective. In my opinion this section was a little pedestrian. See if you can write the same thing but in a way that will make your analysis stand out from the pack. Was “evil” the most important word, and thus warrant such individual attention? Or can you combine his use of “evil” with tone/ other language choices/ techniques that in combination work to achieve the same effect? Lum then adopts an alliterative rhythm to liken anyone who "promot(es) and profits" from an "addictive product" as a "criminal or sociopath". Nice pick up. Interesting points like these will really make your analysis stand out. This is intended to function in two ways: firstly, Lum's association of tobacco companies with "criminal(s)" and "sociopath(s)" serves to warn readers that those who endorse smoking are dangerous, dysfunctional members of society who that they ? Proof read manipulate the vulnerable who are prone to "addict[ion]". This can also be linked with his admission that Big Tobacco is "acting within the law", suggesting to readers that tobacco companies are not literal but "ethical and moral" criminals. This encourages the reader to reevaluate the intent of these companies and to consider withdrawing their support.Try and be more specific with your intended effects. How exactly does the author go about trying to make the reader withdraw the support. What is it about being an “ethical and moral” criminal that causes the audience to react in that way. How do specific subsets of his audience react? eg. smokers will most likely react to this differently to those who were already suspicious of Big Tobacco. Lum continues his theme of "morbidity and mortality" by labelling Big Tobacco as "pedlars of death", stressing that tobacco companies' desire to improve their marketing has the underlying subtext of selling death to anyone including "children". Lum's mention of children is particularly alarming to readers who are parents, appealing to their desire to love and protect their children, Discussing how the author want particular parts of an audience to react is really powerful.. as well as evoking a sense of disgust that such companies would stoop to such "diabolical" behaviour to make a profit as they are without a "conscience".
conclusion: not sure how to do them! According to my teacher the only time you need a conclusion is to compare/ contrast multiple pieces (which of course you have in an exam). I’m not really sure how you’d write a conclusion here, perhaps just summarize the main technique used. Hopefully someone else can help out here
Overall
• Language and vocab really good! I think it flows quite nicely, and you are able to use some good vocab which is letting you get into some really nice ideas
• Keep it short and concise
• You’ve picked up some interesting points here which is really good
• I think you could focus a little more on exactly how the author intends the audience to respond, and how the author appeals to different subsets of the audience.
!
Well here goes this is my piece for week 3 (you would of though it would get easier but this is still terrifying ah well!)Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some feedbackSpoilerIn a letter to the editor published in an American newspaper, the author condemns the brutality of the public’s support of the death penalty, and thus appeals to the readers pity seeking to argue that the death penalty is abhorrent and barbaric and thus should be abolished.
The author seeks to shock readers into confronting society’s violent desire to see criminals condemned to death. In employing quotes from “ordinary people” that portray society as wanting to go back to the “old days” whereby the death penalty was carried out quickly and without numerous appeals, the author seeks to portray the death penalty as both unjust and savagely cruel, a historic relic that is an anachronism in today’s world. The author intends to alienate readers from this general perception by playing upon their fear of seeming old fashioned, and thus the author seeks to encourage readers to move past the death penalty as a form of punishment and think for themselves.
The author portrays “ordinary people” as simplistic and fuelled by “bloodlust”. In arguing that the reasons for wanting the death penalty stem from fear and money, the author seeks to undermine the “everyday, ordinary human[‘s]” argument. In using only simplistic language when describing these ideas such as labeling the “death row inmates” as “bad people”, the author attempts to imply that such people are incapable of comprehending the complex ideas of justice. The reader is positioned to feel superior to people that hold such ideas, and thus are encouraged to see beyond the death penalty as the method for justice.
And now to return the favour:
Feedback for Tashhhaaa
My Week 2 piece:P.s. Someone else pls also mark hers.. I don't want her to only just get my substandard marking - I just wanted to give it a go ::)SpoilerTobacco companies' recent attempt to gain access to confidential survey data regarding teenagers' smoking habits and purchases has sparked widespread concern as explicated by medical practitioner Graham Lum's letter to the editor. Lum contends that tobacco companies' targeting of "children" is immoral and should warrant shame and concern. Lum adopts an authoritarian approach to vehemently reject the tobacco industry's "shameful" approach to expanding their clientele. nice vocab! :D
Graham Lum makes no attempt to hide his bias having been a "medical practitioner for half a century" not sure is expressed to its full potential. Personally I feel that "Lum makes no attempt to conceal his bias, as is connotated by his position as a "medical practioner for half a century" is favourable", using his expertise in the medical field to validate his view that smoking is "nothing short of evil" i think it's not really relevant that he has 'expertise' in the medical field, as this is more of an ethical topic. Instead perhaps refer to the general ethical connotation that belongs to doctors. Lum's choice to open his letter with this statement instantly provokes dont think this is quite the right word.. Perhaps try prompts?readers to see his subsequent arguments as credible and worthy of their considerationfair point, although that last phrase feels a little clunky to me. Furthermore, his condemnation of smoking plays on the negative connotations of the word "evil", suggesting to the readership (or at least that seems to be the trend - what you've got is probs just as good lol) that tobacco companies have a malicious agenda perhaps be a little more specific?and that smoking habits are worthy of our concern dont say our or we or anything like that. Also be more specific; he's not really discussing people's smoking habits as his main point - it's more like he's talking about how it's wrong to pull adolescents into such a habit. Lum then adopts an alliterative rhythm to liken anyone who "promot(es) *promoteand profits" from an "addictive product" as a "criminal or sociopath". This is intended to function in two ways: firstly, Lum's association of tobacco companies with "criminal(s)" and "sociopath(s)" serves to warn readers that those who endorse smoking are dangerous, dysfunctional members of society who that "that" not neededthey manipulate the vulnerable who are prone to "addict[ion]"better: they manipulate those who are vulnerable to addiction?. i think you need to delve delve deeper into how he uses the alliterative rhythm.. Right?? (As in, am I right?) This can also be linked with his admission that Big Tobacco is "acting within the law", suggesting to readers that tobacco companies are not literal but "ethical and moral" criminals. nice :)This encourages the reader to reevaluate the intent of these companies and to consider withdrawing their supporti suppose.. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not really as though his main intention is to do the aforementioned is it?. Lum continues his theme of "morbidity and mortality" by labelling Big Tobacco as "pedlars of death", stressing that tobacco companies' desire to improve their marketing has the underlying subtext of selling death to anyone including "children". Lum's mention of children is particularly alarming to readers who are parents try 'such as', appealing to their desire to love is that relevant?and protect their children, as well as evoking a sense of disgust that such companies would stoop to such "diabolical" behaviour to make a profit as they are without a "conscience" not sure if those last six words really fit in.. or at least I'm not sure about the segue that leads to them.
So, overall, awesome writing :)
Just remember:
Be specific
Be relevant
Don't use 'we' 'i' 'our' etc.
And most importantly...
keep up the awesome work ;D
.
Edit: omg, the actual seconds after I posted it I looked back at the thread and realised vce life had already done it LOL. Oh well,... It was a good learning experience ;)
Haha thanks :D
lol it's fine, I got two rounds of feedback woo
and omg yoU'RE GRADUATING IN 2018?!?!/!?!
YOU'RE IN YEAR 9?!?!?!?!?
I didn't even know what a language analysis was when I was your age (wow I sound old haha), let alone how to correct one
your motivation is inspiring, keep it up! just don't get sick of VCE before you're actually doing it!
btw your feedback was great, as was vcelife's 8)As was yours 8) (and on that note, damn.. I'm lovin how I can finally wear my summer clothes again and go outside 8))
Haha thanks :DAs was yours 8) (and on that note, damn.. I'm lovin how I can finally wear my summer clothes again and go outside 8))
Feed back for The Aspiring Doc.Thanks duo!
Thanks duo!Hey duo & all others who were following :)
And in return:
Feedback for duo0024SpoilerTraveller good start, sets the scene and all, although I feel that by adding this in straight away and not analysing immediately, you’re kinda wasting your opportunity to analyise it. Well I guess you’re not really, just that you still need to come back to it later. Esther btw Esther is a female name (I think) Lewin’s disappointment pervades throughout his review in regards to the toilets at the Melbourne Airport failing to meet up to ‘First World’ standards nice, although I think you’d do well to perhaps also delve into her likening of it to a third world country facility?. Designed to shine a spotlight are clichés okay in the VCE?. Also I think illuminating would be more concise and suited. on the lack of care assigned to these facilities also I think she tries to discuss the lack of funding for it, Lewin contends that the conditionsof toilets at Melbourne Airport could perhaps be seen as a deterrent to other travellers especially those from overseas. (don’t right that, but perhaps mention in some way?).
Lewin commences his review by establishing his credentials to his readers as someone who ‘travel(s) often’, thereby attempting to ascertain a relationship of authority authority? A word like that applies to week 2’s analysis of the doctor, but I wouldn’t say Lewin has authority, it’s more like she’s in a good position with the reader. As he has had many experiences and exposures to other toilets in other countriestechnically, Lewin never actually specified that he’d been to other countries.., the readership will not only now portray don’t think that is the right word – try ‘view’ Lewin as more worthy to critique the Melbourne Airport for their ‘disgust(ing)’ ‘toilets’, but also take his arguments into consideration not quite comfortable with that last phrase – it’s kinda like you’ve already stated that?.
The tricolon ‘first world, rich, well-resourced’ bam! (sorry, I meant ‘cool’) used to describe Australia seeks to establish and inflate the grandeur of the Australian country why ‘country’? is it really necessary? , inciting feelings of pride in the Australian readership fantastic!. This pride however, soon diminishes into feelings of shame not quite shame, it’s more like embarrassment I think. Lewin is shaming the airport management, not the reader. She is simply appealing to her readership’s patriotism to an extent – resulting in us feeling ‘let down’, and hence we resort to also wanting to shame the airport staff – not ourselves, the readers., and disgust when Lewin contrasts this grandeur to the ‘dirty floors, grubby toilets’ and ‘broken furniture’ I’m likin’ it :). By listing a surplus of the negative aspects of Melbourne Airport’s toilets, Lewin suggests to the readership that the list is unexhausted, thereby compelling Melbournians to depict the issue of their ‘grubby toilets’ as far worse than imagined, and would thus likely share in Lewin’s observation that it hasn’t ‘been updated for years.’ umm.. how does that lead to the conclusion that the toilets haven’t been .. updated?
Lewinproceeds bydon’t need ‘proceeds by’ – cut it out and instead just say Lewin asserts.. asserting that by leaving the toilets as they are, their presence can perhaps act as a deterrent toother‘overseas travellers’, and as such suggests that the indifference and lack of action more concise is ‘inaction’ shown try ‘displayed’ by the Melbourne Airport could perhaps be costly to Australia’s reputation odd choice of word I think. I know what you mean, but I feel that something like ‘appeal’ or even ‘eminence’ maybe woud be better? Anyhow, great sentence ;). Readers are thus likely to elicit feelings of frustration at the ineptness of the authority figures in the Melbourne Airport, and would agree that some of the ‘profit should be used on appropriate and necessary facilities’ to ascertain a far more welcoming ‘introduction’. ggggrrrrreeaat!!
For me, I feel that your areas for improvement are conciseness and choice of words – mainly if what you’ve written as actually relevant/stated in the text etc.
Awesome job ;)
Feedback for That Other GuyGood job :)SpoilerIn a letter to the editor, entitled “Shameful introduction”, Esther Lewin expresses her disenchantment great word! regarding the condition of I must say, we’ve got a lot of wannabe superheros on AN, all cutting the fine line with conciseness :). I feel this way mainly because those last three words, ‘condition of the toilets’, don’t really add anything to your case other than what the following few words seem to already say.. the toilets
facilitiesat Melbourne airport.Propelling her discourse in an embittered tone, Lewin I believe we can actually just cut out that whole first segment, and then insert a word such as ‘sourly’ here, and say the same thing, only in far fewer words
contends thatthe state ofthese public amenities defile the outward aesthetics of Australia and “what… it offers” Awesome intro! Unlike Lewin’s, yours is anything but shameful ;).
Lewin begins anecdotally, impressing upon the readera sense ofher experience and thus herposition ofauthority on the matter more concise: Lewin anecdotally impresses upon the reader her experience, and thus her authority on the matter. Which ultimately has what effect on the reader? (making them more inclined to believe/appreciate her arguments). The use of “each time”, coupled with “I have been disgusted”, exposes this issue as perennial and one that is experienced on a personal level by all who utilise the airport facilities. Thedirectcontrast between “First World” and “Third World”here positions the reader to berevileds at the standards of the facilities and consider them to be retrograde more concise: The contrast between “First World” and “Third World” reviles the reader regarding retrograde facilities (I mean, that does work, right?).This is compounded bythe use of words such as “dirty”, “grubby” and “grimy”, weighted with an acrimony for filth I’m not saying it doesn’t belong here, I just don’t personally get how this bit fits in,and serve tobuilds upon thealready-establishedrevulsion of the letter having what effect upon the reader? And also, if something is building upon something else, then surely it is already established?. Thus not sure if this word belongs here, Lewin deems Melbourne airport’s shortcomings to be inexcusable as they belie the “Well-resourced” opportunities that the country proffers ’that the country proffers?’ Do you mean she implies that, or is that a bit opinionated or..? Remember; you don’t want to turn an LA into an opinion piece. Also, what effect does this sentence have on the reader? Does it make them want to act in same way, or feel some way or..?.
Moreover, Lewin appeals to the reader’ssense of economyfrugality by exposing the paradoxes paradoxes? Why? I know that you wrote this super quick, bit still, it’s always good to try and be a little prudent by thinking about what you’re going to write before you do so. Perhaps you were looking for a word more like ‘flaws’? of Melbourne Airport’s management’susage of capitalexpenditure. By acknowledging that “services at the airport” are “expensive”, Lewin seeks to amass a following of those who are aware that the price versus the quality is grossly incongruous I get what you’re saying, but it’s almost as though it’s overly concise. I say this because you haven’t really specified what ‘the quality’ is referring to. . In stating that updates to the public amenities correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t amenities kinda imply public anyway? should be “appropriate” and “necessary”, Lewin suggests that authority figures at Melbourne Airport have overlooked something of the most basic nature perhaps just ‘basic’ or ‘obvious’ would be more concise than those last five words? – and in the process, she unearths their true ineptitude true, although if you don’t then state how this relates back to the reader, there isn’t really any point of having it. The high modality I personally don’t get how this word fits in. although maybe that’s just me..? colouring the word “unconscionable” appears to be a scathing attack regarding the maltreatment of the “Cleaners”, who Lewin portrays as exploited by the airport’s attempt to “economise on their services”. Here < I get why you’ve it, I’m just not sure if it really belongs, the audienceis made awarelearns that not only is Melbourne airport dismissive of people’s hygiene a.k.a. unhygienic?, it is entirely avaricious again, this feels a little opinionated (but I’m not sure). Hence, the reader is galvanised to galvanise someone means to shock or excite them into action. I’m not sure that merely causing someone to perceive differently is worthy of the word galvanised. But then, you guessed it – I’m not sure to perceive Melbourne airport management with a pejorative great word! lens.
In concluding her letter It may be that you don’t actually need this first phrase; she has used the technique, and unless the location of the bit you’re analysing is critically important, I’d think that it’d be more concise without this bit, Lewin assumes a worldly approachandnotesing that the airport is often travellers’ “first introduction” to the country. Herein again, same rant as I just went through, discussing that perhaps location in the piece isn’t needed not sure :P, Lewin appeals to the reader’ssense ofnationalism in portraying this issue as not only deplorable for the individual, but the entire nation itself More concise: issue as deplorable for both the individual and the nation. Through this, the reader is likely to experiencea senseof embarrassmentofregarding the airport’s management. Thus, with the final words now I think it’s acceptable to describe the location, given the fact the they are indeed the ‘final words’, “I think this is shameful”, Lewin reinforces her contention, establishing an atmosphere of contempt that may linger with the reader, fermenting further negative emotions regarding the condition of Melbourne airport’s facilities and arousingan awareness of the needa desire for change.
Fantastic piece, especially given the time constraints :D
I think you’ve got a few things to work on, but going really well.
P.s. Thanks for the great choice of topic Bangali ::)
as bangali wisely saidwooooooo I'm rising the world! been quoted for the first time in my life! ;)
P.s. Thanks for the great choice of topic Bangali ::)You are so totally welcome. I'll be trying to better it next week ;D any suggestions for a super-awkward topic welcome, anyone
P.S. Sorry whoever's work this is, nothing personal bout your writing, just randomly landed on it!
how do you guys cope with the time constraints? My teacher recommends writing it in 50 min but I'm still not finishing them and it ends up taking me 70 mins :s
also I will write the latest piece up tonight, call me out if I forget Heidi plz
(...I forget everything...)
Will do Tash ;)
[If I had been writing essays at this point which I wasn't], I had exactly the same problem (took like 70-80 mins on each when practising, and even under exam pressure, I only had 35 mins to give to Context :P).
For you, the way to improve is probably
a) practise
b) cut out techniques/quotes - just decide not to write about them
c) develop a list of sentence formulas and phrases, and reuse till they flow off your pen without thought
d) quit on perfectionism. Just write something even not quite so good. If you have an idea, put it down on the page even when it's not quite as good as you'd like. If you can't start a paragraph, just start it really badly - and come back later.
thanks! I think perfectionism is my biggest issue :s
may I ask, if you weren't writing essays at this point, how did you prepare?!
Sorry for not being round here much, badly timed a whole heap of extra shifts and other commitments just round exam time so I don't even have enough seconds to check AN let alone help out :((((((((((
plus I seriously believe the dementia of all my patients is rubbing off on me
Whoops, sorry for not answering. I'm not saying you shouldn't write essays (that would be like the worst advice ever given on this forum), but that I didn't because I totally gave up on them like 6 weeks before the exam. Instead, I analysed my texts, planned for prompts, annotated articles for LA, etc.
Here's feedback for your piece, too, tashhhaaa!
thank you! if you can, (focus on work/sleep/fun and take a break first!) what do you think that deserves out of 10? My teacher keeps giving me 7s for everything and I'm absolutely terrified
Feedback on 99.90pls’s week 7 pieceSpoilerInspired by the ABC’s recent program ‘Ka-Ching Pokie Nation’, Peter Allan of Blackburn has written a letter to the editor which contends, in an fervent, abhorred tone, that greater political action must be taken to denounce and sanction word choice? Sanction = approve or give permission. EDIT: looked it up, turns out the word has two opposite meanings and I only knew one… UGH MY IGNORANCE :-[ the gambling industry, and that current measures are insufficient. He targets the entire Victorian demographic in hopes of generating grassroots support for the “[combatting]” of “problem gambling”. basically flawless intro, I'd just mention the government since a lot of it is about attacking them and their interests in gambling
Allan titles his letter “Wean governments off the revenue”, likening “revenue” don’t need to put this in quotes to a narcotic to be “[weaned]” off. Thus, he implies that “governments” are addicted to a notion which may provide temporary relief but will ultimately result in grave harm awesome! Seriously, this is like the best sentence I’ve read in marking essays all year.. “Wean” also links in with the addictive nature of “poker machines”, suggesting that the “governments” too have become gambling addicts given time restraints, you’re probably going on too long about one word – I’d cut this sentence because you killed that word last sentence already; expand on the impact of that rather than adding a new point. Anyways, now can you just draw it a bit further to the reader? You’re using words like ‘implies’ and ‘suggests’, which are great, but they’re about what the AUTHOR is doing rather than the focus on the READER. So now, if we see the govt as addicted. How does that make us FEEL and THINK about them? You could either start a new sentence and expand (e.g. ‘Hence, the reader may feel/view the government as…’), or ‘cheat’ by swapping ‘suggesting’ with ‘encouraging the reader to feel’… The superfluous “many” in “many hundreds of thousands” exacerbates the magnitude of the “problem” again, I wouldn’t “quote” so much as you’re doing because it looks messy and takes the focus away from the quotes that you’re actually analysing, like ‘wean’ or ‘many’ immensely, as three consecutive multiplicative quantifiers curious, can you come up with words like this under exam conditions!? I sincerely hope not, for everyone else’s sake ;) (“many hundreds… thousands”) evoke the image of unbridled exponential growth. The repeated and emphatic use of the conjunction “and” in “gamblers and their families”, “directly and indirectly” imply that the issue has become ubiquitous, and that it is spreading like a plague in that one party being afflicted will directly result in another related party also being affected. If you could pull this stuff in the exam, you’d be 10ing it for sure. Awesome stuff. All the more awesome because it’s unusual and no one else will think of it. Now take it that step further – if we see that the issue is ubiquitous and spreading, how does that make us feel? Scared? Worried? Annoyed? (all that stuff, I’ll leave it to you to clothe in fancy language :P)
The circular logic of “[the] onus is on the gambler…” highlights the irrationality of the “pitiful situation”, in conjunction with the oxymoronic irony of “government-endorsed theft”, as the enforcers who are supposed to prevent theft are now partaking in it. This also evokes a sense of lawlessness and moral decadence, which is supported by the scathing accusations of “greedy and manipulative” interests. Same thing – spotlessly perfect analysis except that you could focus on the reader’s response more – they’ll see it as irrational and thus condemn the idea, or they feel it’s lawless and morally decadent and thus it makes them feel ____ about the government [ugh all my ideas feel idiotic next to your flawless prose]
Finally, the anaphora of the inclusive “we” in “We need political action… We need to… reduce problem gamblers… We should not give up…” angles the reader alongside Allan and creates a dichotomy between the government and its sinister “entrenched interests” versus the noble action which he emphatically invites readers to take. another minor point – you could try to split up sentences a bit shorter. I know the temptation to fit everything into one sentence, but you have a bit more room to ‘move’ if you can split it up with ‘This/It also…’ or ‘Furthermore…’. When you try to cram everything into one sentence, it gets tricky trying to keep it all clear and easy to navigate.
Imagining that LA has three steps -
1. Quote and/or technique (WHAT the author is doing)
2. The immediate impact of this (i.e. what it suggests, presents or implies)
3. How this makes the reader feel and think and want to do
- you are utterly, impossibly killing steps 1 and 2.
But to make 1000% sure that you kill the 10, focus on step 3. How does each and every quote you mention make the reader feel or think about the issue? What emotions does it raise? How does it make them view the people or things involved?
Brother. Work on step 3 and make sure you can reproduce this in the exam, and the examiners will be disappointed there’s no such thing as an 11/10.
*How does it make the reader FEEL or PERCEIVE? (technique -> implication -> reader)
*Stop quoting unnecessarily unless you're going to analyse it!
*Don't labour a point for too long
*Watch sentence length so that it doesn't spiral out of control
hey bangali_lok
can we revive this for class of 2016?
Hey... sorry for missing this! Absolutely we can!Thanks for the initiative Bangali!
First, I really need feedback! If anyone who participated/watched is still hanging round, any ideas for making it better (greater accountability? different letters? how often it's posted? turn it into a competition? etc.) will be absolutely unbelievably welcomed.
Second, I'm not sure how much to do this. Like if I do it every week of the year, people won't really join in at all - maybe if I did it over these holidays and into the start of the term (coz LA is generally the 1st/2nd SAC), then like monthly from then on, then weekly again in the 2 months before the exam? Opinions?
Input would be AWESOME!!P.S. Results From 2015's Mad LA Struggle!Spreadsheet here. ... though since numbers and English don't meld, the probability that I achieved 1+1=3 is about 1.5 no wait, probability is on a scale from 0 to 1 Looks like Burt Macklin and AspiringDoc are vying for first place... time for you two to check up on my arithmetic and then fight over the below prize via PM.
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|______|
(An Amateurish AKA Awful Attempt At ASCII Art)
Hey... sorry for missing this! Absolutely we can!Throwing around some ideas here :)...
First, I really need feedback! If anyone who participated/watched is still hanging round, any ideas for making it better (greater accountability? different letters? how often it's posted? turn it into a competition? etc.) will be absolutely unbelievably welcomed.
Second, I'm not sure how much to do this. Like if I do it every week of the year, people won't really join in at all - maybe if I did it over these holidays and into the start of the term (coz LA is generally the 1st/2nd SAC), then like monthly from then on, then weekly again in the 2 months before the exam? Opinions?
Input would be AWESOME!!P.S. Results From 2015's Mad LA Struggle!Spreadsheet here. ... though since numbers and English don't meld, the probability that I achieved 1+1=3 is about 1.5 no wait, probability is on a scale from 0 to 1 Looks like Burt Macklin and AspiringDoc are vying for first place... time for you two to check up on my arithmetic and then fight over the below prize via PM.
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|______|
(An Amateurish AKA Awful Attempt At ASCII Art)
Throwing around some ideas here :)...
Might be good to include some image analysis as well as a few comparative tasks here and there. For the weekly tasks we could probably keep it to opinion pieces and maybe an image every now and then? Still keeping it short though. In the monthly ones longer pieces would be good including comparatives, image analysis and different formats (speech, webpage/blog, etc).
Given that Lauren has hopped on board, this year's LA club will hopefully be a whopper. Get excited ;D
Your first task is to suggest an awesome official name for it. Suggestions, everyone?
The LARS was my favourite, Michael :P
And we are totally not doing Andrew Bolt. Just not.
Qaszer, the way you keep obsessing about my writing length shows you have never read the writing of:
1) Lauren
2) Pi
3) Joseph
(Especially #1.)
I was being serious about asking for title-help though :'(
Name: The Not-another-Andrew-Bolt-article language corner (TABLC)I love this. Especially because I was genuinely planning on giving you guys an Andrew Bolt or similarly infuriatingly misinformed piece to test your skills and patience.
Damm no Bangali-esque articles!We're still ironing out details, but the bangali-ness and lauren-ness of the material might shift from week to week. But I promise to torment you with difficultly levels approaching those of the AN prac exams. You're very welcome, everybody.
1) Lauren(http://hooplaha.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Did-I-Win.jpg)
We now have an official name and acronym: The BALLARAT Club (have a crack at deciphering the acronym).Two of the A's stand for 'and.' The first five letters will probably be easy, but I will give brownie points to creative answers. Also if someone posts a guess that is better than our current working title, we shall claim it as our own. The 'T' does not stand for trademark - I will shamelessly plagarise so help me.
Don't ask me why. Maybe because Lauren is rural, she thinks all the best people and things must be rural too... and such is the powerplay going on round here, I just have to knuckle under.Fight me.
...I was allowed to let out this much, Lauren... wasn't I? pls don't fight me, I'm scared
The Bangali And Lauren Language Analysis Repair And Titillate Club!That's actually really close :P but veered off pretty wildly at the end there...
Two of the A's stand for 'and.'
The Bangali And Lauren Language Analysis Repair And Titillate Club!
veered off pretty wildly at the end there...
Wait. Are you talking about the same title as me? O.oDammit, I forgot :P
The Bangali and Lauren Language Analysis Radiology Auditing TacosNvm, I have a new favourite.
hi is this page still running?Welcome to AN! Have you tried this board instead?