Okay so as mentioned in the essay I marked above this, I'm fairly rusty on LA and haven't done it since the very beginning of the year, just trying to mark a few here and there so that my skills stay somewhat intact haha. This is in no way the"MUST DO" when it comes to LA (there's never really an absolute style when it comes to English, lets be real) this is just how I write my PLT essays and I am quite capable of being wrong, so definitely double check anything that you think I have wrong/ other people feel free to correct me haha. The emotionally-charged issue of gay marriage was explored in two separate occasions in The Age in February 2012, with an editorial published on 16th February and a front-page article on 22nd February.
(Personally when I am writing a LA essay for just one Article, the way I will do it is "Title" (Newspaper, Date) because I think it just flows better than listing all the details in, however I also think the way you have done it in this essay works, esp because it is for two articles. The editorial, titled “Magda’s heartfelt call for equality”, adopts a reasonable, matter-of-fact
or pragmatic? voice to discuss well-known television actress Magda Szubanski
’s coming out as gay. It contends
I would avoid directly saying the word contends. It sounds like you're just trying to check off a list when you write the exact names for things that need to be added in here. Rather than using contends just stick in any authorial verbs (I think that's what they're called?) such as Asserts, Argues, Highlights, Illustrates ect ect. There's probably some awesome lists of words that you can use either online in general or on here if you struggle with those kinds of words that ‘Australian marriage law is… a political anachronism’
Personally I will avoid quoting altogether in my introductions just because I feel that it doesnt really add anything to my introduction and it can sometimes end up sounding like you've just copied chunks from the article rather than actually analysing them. Pretty sure this is just a personal preference though, many people do it, just make sure you arent letting the article write the introduction for you and show that you understand ectand that the average Australian’s view of marriage has evolved
into one which is don't like the "one which is phrase" odd wording I think, it breaks the nice flow of your sentence that you had going! Switch it up for "to be" more accepting and ‘enlightened’
Yeah this is more how I would be quoting if you want to quote in your intro rather than quoting the contention of the article (but again, sticking this in here isn't gonna get you any marks) than the conservative views held by those of earlier generations. With a similar approach to the previous piece, a front-page article “Gay marriage ‘inevitable, Gillard tells guests” written by Jessica Wright also embraces gay marriage, employing a diplomatic, hopeful tone
Personally, I treat contention and tone in the same boat. So I will avoid directly stating "this is the tone" because to me it feels like I sound really cliché and just want to check all the needed elements off the list. Your essay is not a checklist! You want it to have all the things you need, but it should not read as if it is a giant checklist. Try and be subtle when you incorporate things like the contention and tone. For example, I will usually swap "tone" for something like approach. for its potential future legalisation. These two pieces are angled towards the educated white-collar workers who make up the majority of the readership of The Age newspaper.
Give a brief overview of the image here even though there's only one image haha (You will also always want to have a paragraph included that analyses the image, so give that a go as well!The reader’s attention is at first captured by the passionate title of the editorial. This line seems pointless unless you actually state what it is about the title that makes it passionate. Also, be very careful about how you analyse the title of an article. Usually they're pretty well thought out and they'll be there for a reason. Try and think outside the box of the writers intentions being "capturing the readers attention" because you can literally write that for every single article that you read, and I'd almost guarantee you that your teacher has read it before. If you're looking to stand out and get good marks with LA, try and be as creative as you can, it will work in your favour! Appealing to one’s sense of justice
Again, the right kind of content is there, but in order to get rid of the "checkbox" feel, you need to word this differently. I'd go with something like, Targeting the reader's morals (that's the best I got at 2am hahaha) by implying the discrimination of Magda Szubanski, the
unnamed author aims to arouse the reader’s sympathy, and thus position the reader to be more receptive to the editorial’s
same deal with the contention thing here. (I wont point it out after this hahaha) Also, just in general in essays I would try and avoid using a ":" I'm not sure if that's just a me thing but when I read that it causes me to pause in my mind, and the main thing that you want to achieve with your essay if you're trying to get good marks is that you don't want awkward and unnecessary pauses in your essay. If you read what you wrote there out loud, and the compare it to "contention, that equal rights should be realised for gay citizens"(I just used that sentence as an example, it needs to be rewritten), you will notice the huge difference between the use of a comma and a ":" in terms of the pause that it creates. contention: equal rights should be realised for gay citizens. The opening anecdote
Ok same deal here. Not sure if this is really the same with an anecdote but the most important thing here is LANGUAGE ANALYSIS. So cool, they've used an anecdote, but what is the language inside the anecdote that is so powerful, and what affect does that have on the reader? (This is possibly because you are in year 11, at my school in year 11 they taught us to write "technique, effect") of Szubanski’s coming out immediately engages the reader
inby providing a current, real-life example to which the audience is able to relate to.
You could even mention that it is a celebrity so its someone that people are going to admire ect ect. Despite the disapproving tone of the editorial, the reader is instantly absolved of personal responsibility and prevented from any defensive feelings when the author states that they are ‘more enlightened than our political leaders’. Instead the Opposition Leader is singly named, blamed and attacked.
Ok this whole end bit, you're telling me all these things and not explaining why you've picked them out! Why is it that the author included them? Literally pick apart every word you choose and include things like the connotations associated with the word, what effect it aims to have on the audience ect ect. This whole article is lacking in Language Analysis itself, its more of a "technique analysis" as I said. If you start picking out the most powerful words and ripping them to shreds you will come off as really sophisticated.Qualitative statistics are used throughout the editorial. No checklist. Quote me the statistics instead and tell me the HUGE IMPACT that such a figure has, bla bla blahh ect‘Most Australians’ are cited to ‘accept being gay as a fact of life’ and believe that ‘the meaning and standing of marriage have changed’. It is suggested that this is the social norm and proposes that anyone possesses other beliefs are out-dated and marginalised.
Ok again, you need to add what this aims to do to the reader. This whole thinggggg is about the reader. She/He's trying to manipulate them to agree with them, you have to write how they do that! If it makes it a bit easier for you while you get the hang of being subtle, try limiting your quotes to 3 words max just so that you are explaining everything properly and don't get lost in the quotes. Dont think that the quotes are going to explain themselves, it is your job to analyse!! Quantitative statistics are then used, which tangibly demonstrate the popularity of the movement for same-sex marriage legalisation.Gimmeeeeee dem quotes instead Appeals
I'd avoid writing appeals ever. Explore the words themselves and what they target in the reader rather than starting with techniques. to one’s civic values are made with Australian marriage law painted as ‘a political anachronism’ and ‘undemocratic’, ruled by ‘minority religious beliefs’.
You cannot quote like this and not explain the quotes! Make sure you write WHY it is included, and WHAT it aims to do to the reader. The piece concludes with an
emotive appealDont ever directly write any techniques like this. Again, we're trying to avoid the checklist. Analyse the most significant words, and explain HOW they impact the reader emotionally instead. to the reader to help stop the ‘deadly harm’ and ‘oppression’ faced by gay citizens, quoting from Szubanski that ‘to be treated as less than equal is a serious issue’.
This editorial is followed up by a front-page article six days later, You already said this in the intro. In reponse to the editorial.. front page blah blah which, utilising a placid, relatively neutral tone, proposes that gay marriage is a likely possibility in the future.
Jessica Wright
Just say the authors full name once at the beginning of the essay and then refer to them as "last name" "The author" "The editor" ect ect appeals to the reader’s family values in presenting and quoting from the two young sons of a lesbian couple Sandy Miller and Louise Bucke, who are eager to see their mothers marry.
again same deal, try and make this more language focused rather than technique focussed. Despite their young age, they argue that ‘people should be allowed to marry the person they love’.
<<<< Analyse this kind of stuff rather than the "appeal". Write how the LANGUAGE creates that APPEAL. But don't write appeal or imma come hunt you down This belittles the opposition of gay marriage
yess more like this! But language based! in proving
Ooh be careful with "proving", you cant really say that the stuff in an article is ever really proof of anything, its sort of just an argument that they twist to look like proof. I would avoid saying this probably ever that even children are more reasonable and can see more clearly.
Analyse the words they use instead and you could mention things like how they use children to demonstrate the idea that its so basic that children can come up with it, literally just get creative!In contrast, the opposition to gay marriage seem narrow-minded and callous.
this is really confusing hahaha Is this by the same author? It is accompanied by a photograph which shows three same-sex couples, with the sons of a couple flanked by their mothers, demonstrating solidarity and unity in their fight for equality.
Alwaysssssssssssssssss analyse the photo!!! Like devote a whole paragraph to the image, it's really importantIn addition to Ms Miller and Ms Bucke, two other same-sex couples are introduced as examples of loving,
through what? same-sex relationships who feel severely disadvantaged by Australian marriage law. As true accounts of real people, their stories carry weight for the reader because like the reader, they are just regular citizens of Australia. Many quotes are used as evidence, engaging the reader and providing added credibility to the article. The reader’s sense of logic and reasoning is challenged as Ms Dane, who is in a same-sex relationship, remarks that their ‘feelings of love and commitment is not different to anyone else’s’, cajoling the reader into agreement that there is no reason why gay marriage should not be legal.
this whole thing needs to be swapped for "word" "connotations" "aim of word on reader"The two pieces both have a similar contention in that gay marriage should be legalised. Whilst the editorial is an informative, judicious appeal to fairness and logic, the front-page article instead focuses on the usage of emotive appeals, with a heavy emphasis on case studies and quotes. The editorial offers a rational viewpoint which is likely to attract reasonable, open-minded citizens but may marginalise the religious due to the contrasting beliefs. In contrast, the front-page article is more likely to appeal to emotionally-sensitive, fair-minded readers.
I think you'll get the conclusion better once you fix up the rest of it haha.
Also just another thing, don't be afraid to argue with what the author is trying to do. If he wrecks his credibility or screws up in some way, analyse it and show off your skills. And dont forget to be creative with your analysis.
Good luck with it ![Smiley :)](https://www.atarnotes.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)