Hoping to get some feedback on my language analysis of the article 'What real People think'
I havent been able to find the article online, so I have attached it as a photo. Hopefully it's readable..
While technology continues to develop in ways that claim to make things better for society, the road toll continues to rise each year. One explanation for this is that the young men driving these newer and newer cars still hold the same attitudes as the men of previous decades. In his opinion piece entitled ‘What real people think’, published online and in a Melbourne newspaper, Frank Sadler contends that young male drivers are largely at fault for road accidents, portraying them as dangerous and egotistical in their arrogant attitudes towards driving. Accompanying the article, an image of a ruined car supports Sadler’s contention through its depiction of the very physical damage that such drivers can cause. The issue is sure to inspire further discussion as a result of its significance to the culture of young people and to the safety of the community as a whole.
Throughout his piece, Sadler adopts a blunt and forthright tone, establishing himself as an especially concerned observer of the negligent actions of young male drivers. The reason is twofold: firstly, he hopes to ally himself with other members of the community who feel similarly at risk from these ‘self-absorbed sociopaths’. But more importantly, with phrases like ‘I’m talking to you’ and through repeated uses of the second person pronoun ‘you’, Sadler blatantly addresses the men who are causing the problem, in an attempt to directly confront them into changing their habits for the betterment of society. In a similarly confrontational manner, the image alongside the opinion piece aims to shock readers into action via its representation of a mangled car, the end product of the ‘poor attitudes and false beliefs’ of these young drivers. From the title at the very beginning of the piece, Sadler implies that unlike the ‘real people’ of society, these youths do not think; the article finishes with a similar notion, describing the males as existing in ‘testosterone charged fantasies’, a conclusion which gives a sense of completeness to Sadler’s argument and is designed to evoke a change in the actions of these young men.
Sadler constructs his piece through the comparison of standard, safe driving practices with the potentially lethal behaviours of these ‘young guns’. Ultimately an advice column, he sets up a number of guidelines throughout the article, beginning with ‘here are just a few of the things that you guys need to get straight before you get behind the wheel’, and then later listing these areas of improvement. Through hyperbole, the writer ridicules the ‘supercharged beast’ with ‘shiny bits all over it’ that is the typical vehicle of these men, deriding them as being ‘a bit old to still be playing with toys’ in the hope that they will abandon these cars, and instead select a vehicle that does not scream ‘Look at me!’. Similarly, Sadler demeans their driving culture, in which it is expected to ‘overtake any car in front of you…no matter what the speed limits are’ and where ‘the road rules apply to everyone else and not to you’, descriptions which present these drivers as selfish, dangerous and arrogant, aiming to make the reader feel disgust with such actions, and for any such drivers to feel as though they are not only being noticed, but also judged by the community.
The writer aims to make these young male drivers realise and feel ashamed of their ‘diabolical risk taking’ while driving, such that they will cease performing them. He indicates that they are the ‘source of the greatest carnage on the roads’, a claim supported by the dilapidated vehicle in the accompanying image which also resonates with Sadler’s earlier imagery of the typical young male’s car as a ‘coffin on wheels’. By making these youths realise that ‘when you’re injured playing footy’ is in fact not the only way to end up in hospital, Sadler hopes to make his readers change their actions in order to benefit not only themselves, but all of society. Further building with this argument, which uses the threat of injury or death as a motivation for action, the writer cites the Traffic Accident Commission’s statistics that support his contention, in the hope that a more official company (for Sadler is himself but a ‘freelance writer with special interest in motoring issues’) may add credibility to his opinion and thus will be considered more serious by the reader.
Sadler presents himself as speaking on behalf of more than just himself, but as a representative of the community as a whole. Humourously admitting that he may be a ‘crusty old curmudgeon’ and a ‘traitor to my gender’, the writer quickly establishes himself as a person mindful of others, unlike the drivers which he will discuss. This is a key aspect of Sadler’s argument, for he claims that his words ‘need to be said’, because ‘no other group’ of the community even ‘comes close’ to the damage caused by this one age group, and so it is about time that this mortal over-performance be realised and discussed. Through a number of probing rhetorical questions, such as ‘When will you get it right?’ and ‘Why can’t you be trusted to do this on your own?’, Sadler aims to impart a sense of shame in the young male readers by sharing the sentiment of ‘most of the responses’ of the community, encouraging them to change their driving behaviours.
Both Sadler’s piece, through its alienation of young male drivers from the rest of society, and the accompanying photograph, which contrasts the damaged vehicle of the male driver in the foreground with the unscathed car of the safe driver in the background, aim to make the reader realise the safety gap between the driving practices of different members of the community. With young men apparently genetically eager to mark their individuality and rebelliousness, the issue of their behaviour in society as a whole, but especially in vehicles, is sure to continue.
Home
Help
Search
Login
