Hey man I'm not really sure about giving marks out of 10 but I can help you out with some feedback! Open with a contextualising sentence - in this we want to introduce the topic that is being debated about without mentioning the article. Usually if you re-word the background information it ends up pretty sweet - check some of the other essays in this thread for examplesIn her opinion piece entitled “The Power of Ink”, (published on her personal blog, Friday 25th March 2011), part time blogger and journalist Helen Day addresses a
target audienceok so we want to mention the target audience BUT we also want to be subtle about it so that it fits into the essay and doesn't break the flow or sound like you're writing out a checklist. You can even just write that *author* is targeting "X" haha of Australian web-users with an interest in current social issues to discuss the rapidly growing popularity of tattoos. Day utilises an exasperated
tone same deal as with earlier, we don't want to sound like a checklist. Switch up tone for another word like approach or a similar word - makes the essay flow betterto argue that while tattoos were once meaningfully transformed by an oppressed minority into a symbol of individuality, strength, and rebellion, their emergence into the fashion industry has rendered them a superficial sign of conformity, enslaving the bearer to society in the same way that they were originally purposed by a cruel majority.
this is a really long sentence might wanna split it By subverting the idea that the tattoo is a creative and original means of individual expression, Day encourages the reader to consider the parameters imposed by mainstream society on individuality and creative freedom in general. - That's analysis. We don't want to talk about the reader in the introduction or any techniques the author has used. We are simply outlining the issue, main points, stick the tone in there subtly, and you also wanna talk about the image but NOT the reader or the effect on them yet. You also need to give a brief description of the image(s) at the end here! (and possibly a very very general point as to how they support the author's main idea just to link it back in hahaha but definitely don't go too detailedIt is through the construction of a social argument
quote what exactly you're talking about that Day alerts the reader to the implications
which are?? I'd state this here rather than at the end of your sentence haha of the growth in popularity of tattoos, reducing the ability of the individual to openly express themselves in interesting, “alternative” ways.
To begin her opinion piece, Day
employs a generalisation Don't identify the techniques - it breaks the flow of your essay and doesn't get you any extra marks. Instead, just quote what you're talking about and explain it!“Everyone has tattoos these days”;
a techniqueno references to techniques - instead language! used to demonstrate to her reader from the outset that contrary to their social image as a sign of individuality and rebellion, tattoos are in fact an ever-increasing sign of conformity to mainstream society. This
contentionsame deal as with the tone, we don't want to be explicit. The author's argument, assertion, Day highlights, illustrates, condones, - google "verbs showing authorial intent" and a list of them should come up for you! is reinforced further by Day’s
comparisonjuxtaposition of “suburban housewives” alongside the criminals and social outcasts that would constitute a “collection in any Australian prison”. By suggesting that suburban housewives- who are stereotypically associated with conservative social values and their conformity to social expectation-
avoid using dashes, they make the reader pause and break the flow of your essay. Instead make sure you're explaining yourself properly in full sentences so that they aren't needed 
“outdo”
why have you chosen to quote this word, what are the connotations of it, what is the intended effect on the reader? those who have actively demonstrated their non-conformity by breaking the law
It's kind of unclear what you're trying to say here, be as concise and to the point as you can, Day positions her reader to mourn the loss of a tattoo’s symbolic value,
oh yeah? how? by doing what? show me dem quotes and prove ittttt! a sign of rebellion that frees the bearer from or allows them to express their frustration with society. Instead, Day
contends, chuck in a word from that list I told you to google here! that tattoos have simply become a sign that the bearer has,
in keeping with a growing perception of suburban housewifes as slaves to convention, simply conformed to social norms,
too many commas here a development Day laments has unjustly robbed tattoo bearers of the means to express themselves as individuals. Instead, as suggested by “cleanskin” in the comment section, tattoos have become
It makes it sound like you're agreeing with "cleanskin", be careful - you're here to analyse, not review! so commonplace that in a modern context it is the choice to “have no tattoos” that renders someone a “rebel and an individual.”
I think possibly you could picker smarter quotes (I didn't read the article just had a quick squizz to see if there was an image, but can you justify to me why you have chosen to quote these things? You need to make sure you're explaining exactly what the author intends to to do the reader by using such words -quote carefully! Day’s
contention same deal as earlier here hahahais highlighted further through her enumeration of the tattoo designs “roses, skulls and Latin phrases” commonly found on the skin of “newsreaders, sitcom stars” and “upmarket shoppers”.
you need to explain each quote individually rather than quoting several times and then explaining them collectively in a general sentenceHer direct association of these designs
- traditionally believed to represent a rejection of the mainstream-
definitely too many dashes please please please get out of this habit!with those who by their very nature uphold fashion and convention, is intended to demonstrate that tattoos,
replace the comma with other words like "which were" and it would sound.like.this.when.you're.reading.it. once meaningful and personal, now mark the bearer as simply another cog-in-the-wheel
ok but why is that important? how does it make the reader feel? why does the author want them to feel this way? of a fashion conscious society, rather than as an individual.
You also go a bit comma crazy. Make sure your sentences aren't super super long hahahaBy taking the reader on a journey from the original purpose of tattoos, a cruel and degrading mark of ownership,
pleaseee try and avoid using so many commas, rewrite your sentences so that they arent necessary it's really letting you down with the flow! to their modern day prevalence, Day encourages her readers to consider the social progress achieved over the centuries in regards to this practice in the context of an inevitable regression to the slavery of the “earliest times” if tattoos continue to be “commodified”.
why have you quoted these words? why has the author chosen them? is there any connotations? how does the author aim to make the reader feel? why? Her use of
adjectivesnope quote me what exactly you're talking about NO GENERAL SENTENCES PLOISE as she discusses the purpose of tattoos under the “Greeks and…the Romans”, to permanently “mark” the “unconsenting” backs of “the deviant and incarcerated”
It kind of seems like to me that you're trying to quote to make up your sentences rather than to back up what you're saying the effect on the audience is and analyse - remember that that is your key purpose!! is designed to elicit an emotional response
what emotional response? anger? happiness? fear? be specific in the reader by appealing to a modern and widespread contempt for slavery.
slavery? what's wrong with that?? why would her audience have a problem with that, how would it make them feel? Through her exploration of the tattoo as a sign of ownership
quote a word that shows what you're talking about, you're here to analyse the LANGUAGE and how that LANGUAGE convinces the READER of the IDEA, not just to talk about the ideas!! and dehumanisation over a thousand years ago, Day encouragers the reader’s disdain for the tattoo’s re-emerging purpose as a “proprietary mark”
I defs reckon you should be talking about quotes rather than ideas in the 21st Century, a development readers are conditioned to view as an unacceptable regression to an archaic set of social values that must be prevented through an increased awareness of the issue.
but language??? In contrast, Day employs the example of “convicts”
ok why did she use this word rather than just citizens? what does it imply? how does it aim to make the reader feel? why does Day want to do that??who responded with “defiance”
same deal as two words ago hahahato the cruelty of “those who flogged them”
FLOGGED? OMG THEY WERE FLOGGED WOAH TATTOOS ARE DESTROYING THE UNIVERSE WOAH DAY YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING MAN I AGREE WITH YOU DAMN LETS RID THE WORLD OF TATTOOS WOAH by having “’Property of Mother England’
why have you quoted this explain m8 etched into the flesh on their backs.” Here Day appeals to an Australian tendency to value and support the underdog and even to a sense of national identity and patriotism,
eh personally I will avoid analysing an appeal to patriotism - you can literally write the exact same thing for it every time it occurs, it comes off as shallow analysis. as it was convicts that comprised much of the first fleet and a “mock[ing]”,
ok why did you pick this word? connotations? how is it meant to make audience feel?? why>
larrikin spirit that has since characterised the Australian response to authority. This subtle reference to Australian history and social values is employed to illustrate to the reader not only the cultural importance of the tattoo as a symbol of rebellion,
and how does this relate to the audience??? how does it affect them?? why?? but as an antidote to oppressive authority that could soon be rendered useless through its rapidly increasing popularity.
I sort of haven't written as much on this para cause it's the same sort of problems repeated - refer to the general tips at the bottom/the stuff I've pointed out at the top hahhaDay also raises a moral argument against the “commodification”
why have you quoted this, implications? audience? why?? same deal of tattoos, suggesting that beyond robbing tattoo bearers of a means of expressing their individuality, their growing popularity detracts from the emotive or symbolic value a tattoo may hold. This idea is expressed through Day’s discussion of the instantly recognisable and historically tragic “numbered tattoo” which can be found on the skin of “those who survived the concentration camps”. Her use of emotive language “indelible cruelty”, “flesh”, “horror”,
ok here we go! These quotes are really powerful bit you haven't analysed them! give me all the stuff I've asked for previously for EACH WORD combined with the personification of the tattoo itself, “…still living in the flesh…”, is employed to evoke the significance of the tattoo as a symbol of personal strength, endurance, courage and an important social reminder of the consequences of oppression and intolerance. It is this emotive and symbolic “power” that “ink” holds which Day laments is unjustly reduced by the use of the tattoo as a superficial fashion statement. This argument is furthered
or even complemented? note the e through the inclusion of an image featuring traditional Maori body art known as “Ta Moko”, a practice the photo caption explains as showing the wearer to have “status within the community”
significance of this?? as well as telling “the story of the wearer’s family heritage.” Since such tattoos must be earned and are a unique symbol of the wearer’s personal identity, Day hints through her inclusion of the image and caption that in some cases the “commodification” of tattoos is immoral and should be avoided out of respect, a sentiment echoed by “Kiwi” in the comment section who claims that “Ta Moko” is “sacred” and the frivolous use of it to be fashionable would equate to “identity theft”-“disgraceful and immoral.”
hugeeeeeeeeeeeeeely long sentence. Also why is it important that it's "immoral" how does this affect the reader? Always always always go back to the reader The loss of the “power of ink” is ultimately encapsulated by Day’s use of nouns as she describes the transition of her own tattoo from a “symbol” to an “ornament”. While “symbol”
I personally avoid double quoting like this I think it just sounds better if you don't do it connotes a depth or presence of meaning, an “ornament[‘s]” sole purpose is to be visually admired, a comparison intended to reinforce in the mind of the reader the undesirable eradication of meaning and value which will inevitably occur if tattoos continue to be commodified.
Ok I'm just gonna give you some general tips here as well cause that's how I roll:
I'd suggest limiting your quotes to 1-2 words firstly (at least while you're becoming a LA beast!)
then I want you to give me that ONE QUOTE then
-connotations of the word
-how the word aims to make the readers feel
-why the author wants them to feel this way
THEN move on and use another word after that rather than quoting 3 or 4 and then explaining them all at once (you should be able to get a few sentences out of the one word - pick evidence carefully!!)
Okay also as I mentioned it seems like you're quoting to fill sentences which talk about ideas rather than to analyse the language used.
Make sure you always reference back to the reader and focus on the language rather than the idea. You want to pick the words used that are the most powerful and that you reckon you could get the most analysis out of! Also don't be afraid to be a bit creative with your ideas - you want to stand out of the crowd!!
Also you should be able to write a whole paragraph on the image(s) - they're really important!!
Good luck with it 
Home
Help
Search
Login
