ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: kyzoo on October 25, 2010, 02:15:37 pm
-
Seriously...I have never analysed an article this freaking long before =.=
The recent digital revolution, wherein much of our modern lifestyle has become governed by digital technology, has instigated widespread and impassioned debate about whether we should embrace this alteration to our lives, as opposed to resisting changes to the way things were done in the past. A written response to this issue, authored by a writer under the alias of Voxi and published in the online journal Digital Technology (23 May 2009), contends that the digital revolution is a phenomenon that we should immerse ourselves in wholeheartedly. Employing a sanguine and often passionate tone, the writer aspires to compel the younger generation who have grown up amidst the digital revolution to share his enthusiasm for emerging digital technologies. Accordingly the appearance of the article in a virtual journal with the logo depicting two laptops encompassing the globe is appropriate, as it emphasises the concept that digital technology is an inexorable constituent of our future.
From the outset, Voxi establishes her argument that the world will inevitably be mired in digital technology and that therefore we should accept it with unbridled optimism. The title “Keyed In” suggests that the state of our world is throughout set in stone, in that there is no escaping the fact that our lives will be utterly surrounded by digital technology. In addition the metaphor of the key insinuates that the digital revolution is unlocking barriers to the advancement of our society, thereby enhancing the capabilities of the human race .Voxi begins his piece by acknowledging the views of those who take the view that “if it works, why fix it?” In doing so, the writer establishes themselves as reasonable commentator who can be relied upon to provide a rational argument, thereby lending credibility to her stance that. Yet at the same time, she subtly disparages her opposition as “Afraid.” Accordingly the audience is made to perceive resistance to developing technologies as a diseased mentality of sorts, one that as members of the digital generation they should eschew. Consequently the audience, especially those belonging to Generation Y wherein technology has had a major role in their upbringing, are compelled to be one of those who are “Excited by the possibility of the unknown.” This dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism is designed to denounce the view that the digital revolution is a pernicious influence on our society. Readers are cajoled towards the comprehension that they should embrace digital technology, as it serves to ameliorate their world.
Voxi proceeds to depict the digital revolution as a development that will dramatically amplify the abilities of the human race. By comparing digital technology to inventions such as the “telescope” and emphasising how such innovations have “[opened] up new worlds”, Voxi endeavours to evoke a sense of unrestrained optimism towards digital technology. The repetition of the word “revolutionize” , with its connotations of a transformation which enhances the world to an extent beyond imagination, is constructed to portray that there is absolutely no reason why the audience should resist the emergency of digital technologies, as there are only extraordinary benefits to be realised should they embrace it. Accordingly Voxi further addresses the opposition’s concerns of how “humanity will be diminished.” In directly quoting a passage from a podcast (presumably contending against the digital revolution), Voxi aims to illustrate that any resistance to the digital revolution is ludicrous; a concept which is particularly emphasised by the incoherent and babbling nature of the podcast extract. The force of the concept that digital technology empowers the human race to attain previously unreachable heights is heightened via Voxi’s allusion to human evolutionary theories. In particular, the pun evident in the term “homo supersapiens” is designed to convince the audience that digital technology is a phenomenon that will only magnify the capacities of our society, and that it is therefore utterly preposterous to view the digital revolution with apprehension.
Voxi furthermore lists the potential benefits of digital technology. In suggesting that digital technology has the capacity to aid our civilization in “finding cures faster” and “[solving] riddles of the universe”, Voxi intends to sway the readers to share her opinion that the digital revolution is a cause for celebration. This concept is then further strengthened by the accompany visual. Depicting a hologram projecting from the core of a prototypical human brain, the image is constructed to illustrate that digital technology will facilitate our attempts to surpass barriers that previously hindered our race. The manner in which the light shines from the head’s centre reflects the writer’s beliefs that digital technology will engender a bright future, and that it is only foolish and suspicious “older people” who oppose such a wonderful development. Voxi proceeds to quash fears that digital technology will violate privacy issues. By revealing how “the pictures we see are not real-time images”, Voxi endeavours to assuage any doubts the audience may have towards the idea that digital technology will enhance our existence in every manner possible. The mention of the “hot balloon people” is intended to convey that the digital technology does not instigate new problems, rather any dilemmas involved with digital technology existed long beforehand.
Voxi’s reference to “global shopping” entices the reader, especially members of Generation Y, to perceive digital technology as an integral component of their lives. Accordingly the audience is made to recognise that further development of digital technology should instigate fear, as it only supplements their lifestyle rather than drastically alter it. Furthermore, Voxi commands the audience to “be excited.” Through this, Voxi hopes to evoke a highly positive and emotional response to the digital revolution, thereby stimulating them to share his unbridled sense of sanguinity towards the phenomenon. In denouncing those who do not align with his spirits of optimism as “losers”, Voxi thereby invites the audience, especially younger members who are “not afraid”, to view any opposition to the development of digital technology as absolutely preposterous. The mindset that digital technology can potentially corrupt our society is lambasted along with the wary “older people” who advocate such a view. As such the writer quashes disagreement to his assertion that we only stand to benefit from the digital revolution. Promoting the technology as enabling humans to be “faster and more efficient”, Voxi fosters from readers a fervent belief that the digital revolution will propel our race to make unparalleled progress.
The crux of Voxi’s piece comes from her passionate appeals ot the reader’s desire for a luminous future, and his continual attempts to link the digital revolution with the notion of “enhancing our lives.” Younger readers who have become accustomed to digital technology are likely to wholeheartedly side with Voxi’s view that we only stand to reap fantastic benefits from the digital revolution. Conversely older members of the audience whom Voxi has slyly denigrated through subtle pejoratives will probably feel alienated by Voxi’s piece, and thereby bolster their resistance against the digital revolution. All in all, this issue is set to spark further debate as digital technology becomes a more prominent facet of our lives.
-
"Accordingly the audience is made to recognise that further development of digital technology should instigate fear,"
typo right?
-
lol is it a him or her, you say both xD
But this is really good. Did you write it within the hour?
I don't see how that can get anything other than 10 :S
-
Damn... this asian guy heaps good at english.
TEN OUT OF TEN! near perfect bar inconsistency with the gender of Voxi and a few sentences that made no sense (probably just typo)
Thanks for the vocab budday! i now know what "sanguinity" and "ameliorate" mean :)
-
im guessing ameliorate means improve or something similar to improvement?
-
Indeedy, it means to improve something making it better, especially something bad.
EDIT:
a·mel·io·rate
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -rat·ed, -rat·ing.
to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate.
-
cooooooollll
did you do this in 1 hour? :o
-
Indeedy, it means to improve something making it better especially something bad.
EDIT:
a·mel·io·rate
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -rat·ed, -rat·ing.
to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate.
from the french word, ameliorer, which was how I guessed :)
-
you english mastermind if only i could write like this i envy your english skills.
-
lol is it a him or her, you say both xD
But this is really good. Did you write it within the hour?
I don't see how that can get anything other than 10 :S
LOL I noticed that I kept interchanging between him and her when I typed it up >.< I don't really think when I'm writing this lol I just spam whatever comes to mind.
And I wrote it in 1:05 when I was intending to take 50 minutes >.<
Damn... this asian guy heaps good at english.
TEN OUT OF TEN! near perfect bar inconsistency with the gender of Voxi and a few sentences that made no sense (probably just typo)
Thanks for the vocab budday! i now know what "sanguinity" and "ameliorate" mean :)
0.o I thought my vocab was lacking >.< Like I felt really stale continually using "digital revolution"
-
You used the word 'digital' 43 times... It comprised 3.7% of your essay >.<
-
0.o I thought my vocab was lacking >.< Like I felt really stale continually using "digital revolution"
If you got any more wordy... you'd be penalised like i do everytime with a massive "VERBOSITY" in thick black texta across my page. It's a fine line, and you're on the right side :)
-
most definitely a 10
-
0.o I thought my vocab was lacking >.< Like I felt really stale continually using "digital revolution"
If you got any more wordy... you'd be penalised like i do everytime with a massive "VERBOSITY" in thick black texta across my page. It's a fine line, and you're on the right side :)
>.< sigh I must have poor judgement then. I always feel I scarifice too much vocab for the sake of writing fast without stopping =/ Like I always have this feeling that my vocab isn't good enough after each essay I write 0.o.
-
vocab is fine. using things like 'digital revolution' repetitively inst too bad considering its something from the actual article.
and yeah, im the same as you kyzoo. I always get carried away and write like 1000+ words in a language analysis and it takes me an hour.
You just have to have a really 'controlled' mindset to get it out in 50 minutes.
otherwise great analysis
-
WOW your writing is really good :)
is it just me but you mgs people structure your essays similarly... (i've been trying to copy but semi-failing haha)
must have good teachers there!
-
WOW your writing is really good :)
is it just me but you mgs people structure your essays similarly... (i've been trying to copy but semi-failing haha)
must have good teachers there!
Structure goes something likes this
Intro
1. Establish the underlying issue, as well as the two opposing sides
2. Author + Publication Details + Contention + Intended Audience + Tone
3. Acknowledge image (if and only if it is significant enough, which it wasn't here)
4. Mention wider implication of topic (Didn't do it here since I already covered it in the first sentnece)
Body
~ Just do it chronologically, starting from the title. Make paragraph breaks whenever you feel your paragraph is getting too big. Focus on specific words and phrases and make up random spastic bs about the probable effect, just whatever comes to mind.
Conclusion
~ Summarize persuasive techniques
~ Summarize effects on different audiences
~ Finish with comment on the future scope of the issue
-
I'd actually dock a mark or two because you don't really touch the image - it's actually quite necessary to actually analyse it properly, even if it's as bare-bones as the Voxi one...
-
I'd actually dock a mark or two because you don't really touch the image - it's actually quite necessary to actually analyse it properly, even if it's as bare-bones as the Voxi one...
3 sentences on it isn't enough?
-
The crux of Voxi’s piece comes from her passionate appeals ot the reader’s desire for a luminous future, and his continual attempts to link the digital revolution with the notion of “enhancing our lives.” Younger readers who have become accustomed to digital technology are likely to wholeheartedly side with Voxi’s view that we only stand to reap fantastic benefits from the digital revolution. Conversely older members of the audience whom Voxi has slyly denigrated through subtle pejoratives will probably feel alienated by Voxi’s piece, and thereby bolster their resistance against the digital revolution. All in all, this issue is set to spark further debate as digital technology becomes a more prominent facet of our lives.[/i]
you didnt summarize persuasive techniques in your conclusion...or is this one of those blend-it-in things? ;D
-
I'd actually dock a mark or two because you don't really touch the image - it's actually quite necessary to actually analyse it properly, even if it's as bare-bones as the Voxi one...
3 sentences on it isn't enough?
I found two in paragraph four - where's the third?
Ok, maybe two marks would be excessive, but I can see someone giving this a 9 instead of a 10 as a result of image deficiency (LOL?).
-
I'd actually dock a mark or two because you don't really touch the image - it's actually quite necessary to actually analyse it properly, even if it's as bare-bones as the Voxi one...
3 sentences on it isn't enough?
I found two in paragraph four - where's the third?
Ok, maybe two marks would be excessive, but I can see someone giving this a 9 instead of a 10 as a result of image deficiency (LOL?).
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
-
make up random spastic bs about the probable effect, just whatever comes to mind.
hahaha so true.
-
I'd actually dock a mark or two because you don't really touch the image - it's actually quite necessary to actually analyse it properly, even if it's as bare-bones as the Voxi one...
3 sentences on it isn't enough?
I found two in paragraph four - where's the third?
Ok, maybe two marks would be excessive, but I can see someone giving this a 9 instead of a 10 as a result of image deficiency (LOL?).
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
I prefer at least a paragraph, so 4 sentences=ok.
-
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
Hmmm, I spend two whole paragraphs on the image, with one on the analysis of it and the other on its correlation to the article... Not sure if EZ does this as well though :P
-
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
Hmmm, I spend two whole paragraphs on the image, with one on the analysis of it and the other on its correlation to the article... Not sure if EZ does this as well though :P
0.o HOW DO YOU SPEND 2 PARAGRAPHS ON THE IMAGE, MY BS GENERATOR RUNS OUT AFTER 2 SENTENCES =.= What else am I meant to say about the image =X "The black background is intended to suggest that without the digital revolution, characterized as it is by the luminous hologram, the human race would be encased within the darkness of wasted human potential."...I can think of nothing more to say =(
I HATE THE VISUAL LOL
-
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
Hmmm, I spend two whole paragraphs on the image, with one on the analysis of it and the other on its correlation to the article... Not sure if EZ does this as well though :P
wouldnt that be wrong though? If you are simply analyzing the image in a WHOLE paragraph without stating its effects but merely its contents, you are ignoring the whole "effect on the reader," which is what lang. analysis is all about....
wouldnt it be easier to state one point the image raises or signifies and expand upon this in regards to its effects on the reader, and then continue until you have one para.
-
=X ok then, would 4 sentences be sufficient? >.<
Hmmm, I spend two whole paragraphs on the image, with one on the analysis of it and the other on its correlation to the article... Not sure if EZ does this as well though :P
wouldnt that be wrong though? If you are simply analyzing the image in a WHOLE paragraph without stating its effects but merely its contents, you are ignoring the whole "effect on the reader," which is what lang. analysis is all about....
wouldnt it be easier to state one point the image raises or signifies and expand upon this in regards to its effects on the reader, and then continue until you have one para.
He means analysing its contents in regards to how it effects the viewer by itself, and then a second paragraph comparing it to the article and discussing the combined effects. I do the same thing.
-
o actually...now I have an idea for how to make up a whole paragraph about the image. Just combine standalone effects of the image with comment about how the image supplements particular concepts that the writer talks about. In this way you can work your way through the article within the image pararaph without having to be stuck on the image for an entire paragraph =D
-
ahh i see... i probably wouldnt have time for that, so i would merely weave it into the same paragraph.
-
o actually...now I have an idea for how to make up a whole paragraph about the image. Just combine standalone effects of the image with comment about how the image supplements particular concepts that the writer talks about. In this way you can work your way through the article within the image pararaph without having to be stuck on the image for an entire paragraph =D
That's what I do (try to at least). I talk about how the certain aspect of the visual complements a certain technique or argument the author used.
-
This is what I wrote earlier this year:
The accompanying graphic acts to reinforce Voxi’s contention that technology will greatly improve the human condition. The digitally generated image of a human head is cast in shadow and juxtaposed onto a black background. The reader, noticing that the only source of light in the graphic originates from the silicon computer chip ‘implanted’ inside the figure’s head, is persuaded to understand that computer technology is a source of enlightenment that can improve our existence. The non-descript features of the figure position the reader to accept that the potential benefits of technology are universally available for all people regardless of gender, race or age. Thus, it becomes clear that the rejection of technological advancement would deny the human species needed intellectual illumination and cast it into a dark age. To the progressive and techno-savvy reader, their attitudes are reinforced as being positive, whilst those fearful of the implications of technology are typecast as being dangerous and detrimental to continued human progress. The silicon chip inside the figure’s head appears to be a computer microprocessor, an integral part that conducts all the major operations within a personal computer. To the savvy reader the possibilities of advancement that come from the shown creation of a ‘supersapien’ species are limitless, as like computer processors, human cognitive power will grow infinitely. The placing of the chip, in the skull of the figure, convinces the reader to view the electronic addition as a simple upgrade of some hardware (the brain) that has become outdated. The scientific-nature of the graphic gives leverage to the author’s view that the combination of the digital and the human are a natural and logical next step. The flashes of binary code that surround the processor are constructed so that their direction of movement is ambiguous. The reader thus sees information, symbolised by computer binary language, being transmitted into and out of the head of the figure and understands that computer technology will allow individuals to actively engage in communicative process, rather than become passive consumers as some would worry. The three levels of ‘binary squares’ grow in size as they are further away from the chip, indicating that technology will gift individuals with the ability to exponentially expand the amount of informative resources at their disposal. The eyes and mouth of the figure are both closed and it’s ears obscured, indicating to the reader that the use of currently normal means of communication have become outdated and thus superseded . Voxi’s audience understands that citizens of the digital age have advanced so much that current methods of exchanging information are primitive. An appeal is therefore made to the reader to adopt new technology as to do otherwise would risk their ability to communicate with others and participate in the world.
-
Hmm so when you have to describe the impact on readers you simply refer to them as readers and not the specific intended audience (younger generation in your view)
-
^ i dont see why you cant?
i always say; This appeals to the (intended audience) who would feel ____ at this.
something like that would be fine.. wouldnt it?
-
I don't know if its better to be specific "This appeals to the younger readers..." or "This appears to the readers" every time I explain the effect.
Btw, do you think there is any significance in the structure of this article as a web page? If so, how would you discuss the persuasiveness of it?
-
Well last years high scoring response included it.
However i dont think it matters all too much. My eng. teacher said not to, yet the one provided on the assessment report does it... so it wouldnt matter.
Although i think things like subheadings and larger fonts etc must be included... yet if the article had 4 paragraphs instead of 3 wouldnt change too much.
-
There's no prescribed amount that you need to write about an image. I always adopt a 'realistic' or 'reasonable' approach where the amount I write about each example is proportionate to its contribution to the writer's overall argument. I prefer to write about how readers will realistically respond to the article, rather than making up bs to fill space.
In this article, I didn't consider the main visual that significant. When I consider how much to write on each aspect of the article, I think about my personal response to the language. If something really emphasises the writer's arguments or really jumps out at me then I'll spend more time on it. In this case, I really didn't respond that much to the visual. I considered it more of a cosmetic addition designed to reiterate the technology theme of the journal and article. Consequently all my discussion on the visual was pretty much weaved in with the analysis of other more important areas of the text. I think I mentioned something about the chip in the brain and related that with the 'evolution of humankind' and 'homo super-sapien' examples.
I also spent some time discussing the visuals in the banner (the computerised interface etc.). Again this wasn't that important overall but it was a good way to distinguish an essay from the pack.
@JVG
I think your example goes too far in terms of discussing the visual. The analysis itself is great and it is written very well, however, a lot of it is highly unrealistic, both in terms of likely audience reactions and what you can writer under time constraints. At times it almost appears tongue-in-cheek, as though you are trying to exhaust absolutely everything there is about the visual when really it is only a minor aspect of the article. For example "The three levels of ‘binary squares’ grow in size as they are further away from the chip, indicating that technology will gift individuals with the ability to exponentially expand the amount of informative resources at their disposal." How many readers are actually going to be influenced by, or even consider the increasing size of the binary squares?
Hmm so when you have to describe the impact on readers you simply refer to them as readers and not the specific intended audience (younger generation in your view)
If the example you are analysing is specifically targeted at a certain audience group or is going to elicit a different emotional response from different groups then I think it is worth talking about that specific group. I think it makes your analysis more precise and shows greater insight into how language can have differing effects on certain readers. It's better then generalising the effect language will have on readers. In this article, I made a number of allusions to how Voxi was trying to establish rapport with younger readers and how the article deliberately appealed to the younger generation who are typically more curious, progressive and adventurous.
Btw, do you think there is any significance in the structure of this article as a web page? If so, how would you discuss the persuasiveness of it?
I don't think the article is 'structured' as a web page. I think it IS from a web page because it is an online article.The computerised interface, however, is deliberate.
I considered it worth discussing. I felt like the fact he was responding to a podcast by writing an online article was a testament to how technology is reshaping our lives. It shows how technology has opened new mediums of communication beyond the printed press. It also reinforces his argument that if you don't accept technology soon, you are going to be left behind.
Another thing you might want to mention is that the placement of the article in an online journal may be questionable. If the article aims to convince those who are intimidated or bewildered by new technology then it may not be so successful given anyone reading the article has already accepted technology to some extent. Including a short statement about this in your conclusion is a great way to sum up and shows some intelligent insight into the context of the article and its intended purpose.
-
just to clarify, is it ok, in a piece like this, to talk about its layout and the visuals in the banner?
-
just to clarify, is it ok, in a piece like this, to talk about its layout and the visuals in the banner?
Definitely. They included it in the text for a reason. The computerised interface and reference to computer command (Ctrl Alt) suggests the intended readership are people familiar with or interested in computers/technology. Talking about the banner, the interface and the context of the article were great ways to distinguish yourself from the other students last year.
-
wow lynt. thanks a lot you gave some really good advice