Language Analysis Feedback

[BNard]

Hi Everyone! I saw that what I assume is the designated LA feedback thread hasn't been posted in for a couple of years, so I thought that it might be easier if I just post mine here.

I'm a bit confused at the moment, because my teacher has taken a really strong 'anti-techniques' stance with regards to analysis, and I'm struggling to not name techniques, yet not be too general in my analysis.  Is there any chance someone can give me some feedback? I'd really appreciate it.

Article: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/with-racism-whenall-is-said-and-done-perception-is-vital-20150802-gipn5m.html

Essay:

Amanda Vanstone’s opinion piece “Goodes is better than the booers, and so are we”, (The Age - 3/08/15), contends that the much publicised booing of AFL player Adam Goodes was an unnecessary display of “pack” ignorance. Vanstone crafts a piece which argues that an inflammatory media “slanging match” and the ugly power of “unthinking mobs” have tarnished the reputation of an admired individual. She asserts that Goodes, a valued member of the Indigenous and wider Australian community, has every right to express his views, whether it be in the political or sporting field, without discrimination or xenophobic commentary. In a personal and passionate voice, Vanstone utilises her own experience, interwoven with relevant colloquialisms that establish a feeling of ‘us and them’, positioning the reader to view the perpetrators of the ‘booing’ as “pathetic and weak people”, and therefore Goodes as a victim of unwarranted abuse.

The headline of Vanstone’s piece immediately reveals her intention to tag “the booers” as an unsavoury group, and establishes a divide between the audience, ‘we’, and the “unthinking mob”.  By arguing that the reader is “better than the booers”, Vanstone is able to draw on her audience’s ego, compelling them to exclude the action of verbal abuse from those that they deem socially acceptable. Including a graphic depicting one black sheep amongst group of white sheep, Vanstone reinforces her contention through the segregation of those who ‘Baa’ from those who ‘Boo’. The coupling of the statement that “Goodes is better than the booers” with the negative connotations associated with the image of the ‘black sheep’ thereby positions the reader to view themselves and the author as having a moral compass that is lacking in the “booers”.

Referencing AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, Vanstone presents the argument that the media response to “the booing of Adam Goodes” was a destructive “slanging match”. Through her allusion to McLachlan denying the media a “running battle” by refusing to label the booing as racist, Vanstone suggests that media involvement in such public issues is often driven more by a desire for drama and subsequent revenue than a desire for productive and reasonable discussion. As Vanstone, using language that encourages the reader to feel part of the debate, states that “we are sick of the simplistic slanging match”, she reinforces her argument that when the media lose sight of the complex and delicate nature of the issue, they become no “better than the booers”, and “take the easy way”. Vanstone’s continual references to “some people” and “others” maintain the thread of her attempts to create a divide between the inappropriate actions of the black sheep and those of herself and the reader, the white, and therefore ‘pure’ sheep.

Drawing upon the references to ignorance and group thought that are suggested by the graphic, Vanstone furthers her contention by asserting that although “footballers hear booing all the time”, the booing that Goodes was subjected to was caused by a “mindless pack mentality”. Through her use of the word “pack” and “unthinking mob”, Vanstone alludes to the less than human nature of the actions, and in doing so denigrates the “pathetic and weak people”.  The negative connotations of Vanstone’s descriptions of the “booers” therefore further her argument that Goodes’ reputation has been unnecessarily tarnished at the hands of a group who are “not people you would feel proud to have as a friend”, and encourages the reader to view them in a truly disparaging manner.

Switching from an attack on the perpetrators to a more reasoned discussion of the issue, Vanstone concedes that she doesn’t “accept that the booing of Goodes is entirely racist”. Through assuming a more accommodating tone, and including her own experience as a Port Adelaide supporter, that “fans adore indigenous players”, Vanstone makes an effort to maintain her reputation as someone who values “nuanced argument and reasoned discussion”. This restoration of credibility is accompanied by a more reflective passage in which Vanstone contends that the “ignorant rudeness” of this “ugly new phenomenon” is something that is partly due to perception, compounded by the inflammatory media action that she described at the beginning of her opinion piece.

Through her assertion that “popularity falls away quickly” when prominent figures such as Adam Goodes step “onto a political stage”, Vanstone reveals her intention to position the reader to view the criticism that accompanies ideological commentary as inevitable. Alluding to the much-publicised actions of Cate Blanchett, she is able to draw upon the reader’s preconceived view that the booers, and much of the public, “don’t like the politics”. Although generalising in this manner may strengthen Vanstone’s argument that Goodes is being criticised for his “courage” in stepping out of the sporting realm and into a political one, rather than for any other aspects of his personality, it may also alienate readers who happen to think that the booing has nothing to do with racism or a rejection of ideological discussion. 

Vanstone then moves into a more direct defence of Goodes, both as a public figure and a personal acquaintance. By stating that it is “plainly ridiculous” to hold him responsible for racist verbal abuse, and that she “loved” Goodes’ “war dance”, Vanstone reveals her respect for him to the reader. Her intention to position the reader to view Goodes in a more compassionate manner is made clear when she describes his “years of constant abuse”, an argument added to by the colloquial manner with which she addresses the “ape jibe” that was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.  Anecdotally, Vanstone outlines her own experiences of Goodes as a “contributor, a giver”, a “great sportsman”, adding to her thread that “it is plainly ridiculous to paint Goodes as the bad guy” due to his status as an upstanding member of “the broader community”. 

Vanstone’s final reference to the fact that Goodes is “far, far better than” the “unthinking yobbos”, and “so are we”, through her recurring distinction between ‘us and them’ reinforces the overarching contention that the reader must separate themselves from the booers, and the toxic, racist attitudes that their actions promote. Through the inclusive and passionate way in which she crafts her opinion piece, Vanstone effectively targets the Australians in her audience, combining their inclination to frown upon the “booers”, and their inherent empathy for victims of “abuse”, such as Adam Goodes. Ultimately, Vanstone leaves her audience with an image of Goodes as a victim of the morally corrupt, “them”, and therefore is successful in presenting her contention that he “is better than the booers, and so are we.”

[literally lauren]

Hi Everyone! I saw that what I assume is the designated LA feedback thread hasn't been posted in for a couple of years, so I thought that it might be easier if I just post mine here.

I'm a bit confused at the moment, because my teacher has taken a really strong 'anti-techniques' stance with regards to analysis, and I'm struggling to not name techniques, yet not be too general in my analysis.  Is there any chance someone can give me some feedback? I'd really appreciate it.

Article: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/with-racism-whenall-is-said-and-done-perception-is-vital-20150802-gipn5m.html

Essay:

Amanda Vanstone’s opinion piece “Goodes is better than the booers, and so are we”, (The Age - 3/08/15), contends that the much publicised booing of AFL player Adam Goodes was an unnecessary display of “pack” ignorance. Vanstone crafts a piece which argues that an inflammatory media “slanging match” and the ugly power of “unthinking mobs” have tarnished the reputation of an admired individual. She asserts that Goodes, a valued member of the Indigenous and wider Australian community, has every right to express his views, whether it be in the political or sporting field, without discrimination or xenophobic commentary. In a personal and passionate voice, Vanstone utilises her own experience, interwoven with relevant colloquialisms that establish a feeling of ‘us and them’ this is a bit colloquial; either briefly expand on who 'us' and 'them' are, or just leave this for your body paragraphs where you can go into more detail, positioning the reader to view the perpetrators of the ‘booing’ as “pathetic and weak people”, and therefore Goodes as a victim of unwarranted abuse. Good intro! Getting a bit long towards the end there; in the exam you usually want to keep it short and sweet to get to the analysis ASAP, but this ticks all the right boxes.

The headline of Vanstone’s piece immediately reveals her intention to tag “the booers” as an unsavoury group, and establishes a divide between the audience, ‘we’, and the “unthinking mob”.  By arguing that the reader is “better than the booers”, Vanstone is able to draw on her audience’s ego, compelling them to exclude the action of verbal abuse from those that they deem socially acceptable. bit lost as to your point here; she's making readers exclude abuse from socially acceptable people? Including a graphic depicting one black sheep amongst group of white sheep, Vanstone reinforces her contention might be more accurate to say that 'the image reinforces her contention.' Even when you get embedded visuals that are part of the author's piece, you don't necessarily want to say that the author is achieving something through "their" visual through the segregation of those who ‘Baa’ from those who ‘Boo’. The coupling of the statement that “Goodes is better than the booers” with the negative connotations associated with the image of the ‘black sheep’ thereby positions the reader to view themselves and the author as having a moral compass that is lacking in the “booers”. V good cumulative analysis - I really like how this builds together at the end and concludes with this overall point about how the author is positioning a certain idea

Referencing AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, Vanstone presents the argument that bit of a weak verbal phrase; consider something more succinct and expressive the media response to “the booing of Adam Goodes” was a destructive “slanging match”. Through her allusion to McLachlan denying the media a “running battle” by refusing to label the booing as racist, Vanstone suggests that media involvement in such public issues is often driven more by a desire for drama and subsequent revenue than a desire for productive and reasonable discussion. As Vanstone, using inclusive (as I'm assuming that's the language you're focusing on here - the 'we' in the following quote?) language that encourages the reader to feel part of the debate, states that “we are sick of the simplistic slanging match”, she reinforces her argument that when the media lose sight of the complex and delicate nature of the issue, they become no “better than the booers”, and “take the easy way” again, loving the flow and the linking of ideas, but you're starting to quote to summarise more than analyse here. Using the language of the author is really impressive (esp. in Text Response essays) but you have to be really cautious with it in L.A. as it can detract from the quality of your analysis. For instance, this expression "take the easy way" kind of deserves analysing if you're going to bring it up Vanstone’s continual references to “some people” and “others” maintain the thread of her attempts to create a divide between the inappropriate actions of the black sheep could also discuss these connotations (i.e. a black sheep being a loner/ outsider/ person who doesn't belong for whatever reason) and those of herself and the reader, the white, and therefore ‘pure’ sheep. I get what you're hinting at, but it'd be good if you had another sentence at the end to spell this out a little more clearly. What is it that distinguishes these good sheep from the bad sheep? And why does this help the author's argument?

Drawing try not to overuse this sentence structure of 'Verbing X, the author does Y.' Nothing wrong with it, but it can be noticeably repetitious when every topic sentence begins the same way upon the references to ignorance and group thought that are suggested by the graphic, how are they suggested by the graphic? The connection might be obvious to you (and to your assessor,) but unless you demonstrate it in your essay, you can't get credit for it. If it helps, pretend you're writing to a 5 year old who can comprehend your logic if you lay it out, but isn't going to make big leaps of logic on their own, or based on their worldly knowledge Vanstone furthers her contention this is a minor point, but try and cut down on phrases like 'reinforcing her point' or 'contributing to the strength of her arguments' or w/e. They're technically correct, but they're too vague to be worth anything, and you don't want to annoy your marker by using a bunch of filler phrases/sentences by asserting that although “footballers hear booing all the time”, the booing that Goodes was subjected to was caused by a “mindless pack mentality”. Through her use of the words “pack” and “unthinking mob”, Vanstone alludes to the less than human nature of the actions, and in doing so denigrates the “pathetic and weak people” quoting to summarise.  The negative connotations of Vanstone’s descriptions of the “booers” therefore further her argument that Goodes’ reputation has been unnecessarily tarnished at the hands of a group who are “not people you would feel proud to have as a friend”, and encourages the reader to view them in a truly disparaging manner.

Switching from an attack on the perpetrators to a more reasoned discussion of the issue, Vanstone concedes that she doesn’t “accept that the booing of Goodes is entirely racist”. Through assuming a more accommodating tone, and including her own experience as a Port Adelaide supporter, that “fans adore indigenous players”, this doesn't really fit the context of this sentence Vanstone makes an effort to maintain her reputation as someone who values “nuanced argument and reasoned discussion” yes, but why does this matter? How does this help her persuade the audience of her point of view? This restoration of credibility is accompanied by a more reflective passage in which Vanstone contends that the “ignorant rudeness” of this “ugly new phenomenon” is something that is partly due to perception, compounded by the inflammatory media action that she described at the beginning of her opinion piece again, round this back to her overall argument, or a broader depiction/positioning of something.

Through her assertion that “popularity falls away quickly” when prominent figures such as Adam Goodes step “onto a political stage”, Vanstone reveals her intention to position the reader to view phrasing is a bit clunky the criticism that accompanies ideological commentary as inevitable. Alluding to the much-publicised actions of Cate Blanchett, she is able to draw upon the reader’s preconceived view that the booers, and much of the public, “don’t like the politics”. Although generalising in this manner may strengthen Vanstone’s argument that Goodes is being criticised for his “courage” in stepping out of the sporting realm and into a political one, rather than for any other aspects of his personality, it may also alienate readers who happen to think that the booing has nothing to do with racism or a rejection of ideological discussion IMPORTANT: don't do this in the exam! If your teacher is fine with donig this in your SAC, then don't worry, but what you're doing here is called evaluating the author's argument (i.e. casting judgement on whether or not it is persuasive) and it's something you should avoid at all costs at the end of the year. The task is to identify how the author attempts to persuade readers, so commenting on whether or not they're successful in this endeavour is outside the scope of the criteria. In other words, use sentences like 'The author attempts to elicit...' rather than 'readers might feel...'. 

Vanstone then moves into a more direct defence of Goodes, both as a public figure and a personal acquaintance. By stating that it is “plainly ridiculous” to hold him responsible for racist verbal abuse, and that she “loved” Goodes’ “war dance”, Vanstone reveals her respect for him to the reader. Her intention to position the reader to view Goodes in a more compassionate manner what's the connection between these two ideas? is made clear when she describes his “years of constant abuse”, an argument added to by the colloquial manner with which she addresses the “ape jibe” that was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.  Anecdotally, Vanstone outlines her own experiences of Goodes as a “contributor, a giver”, a “great sportsman”, adding to her thread this expression is a little odd that “it is plainly ridiculous to paint Goodes as the bad guy” due to his status as an upstanding member of “the broader community” quoting to summarise. 

Vanstone’s final reference to the fact that Goodes is “far, far better than” the “unthinking yobbos”, and “so are we”, through her recurring distinction between ‘us and them’ reinforces the overarching contention that the reader must separate themselves from the booers, and the toxic, racist attitudes that their actions promote. Through the inclusive and passionate way in which she crafts her opinion piece, Vanstone effectively targets the Australians in her audience, combining their inclination to frown upon the “booers”, and their inherent empathy for victims of “abuse”, such as Adam Goodes. Ultimately, Vanstone leaves her audience with an image of Goodes as a victim of the morally corrupt, “them”, and therefore is successful see above re: evalutation in presenting her contention that he “is better than the booers, and so are we.”

Some great analysis here, and your linking was really excellent in some parts. Watch out for:
- evaluation
- summarising quotes instead of analysing them
- vague references to how things 'add to the author's contention'
- overusing particular sentence structures

Also, whilst I'd probably agree with your teacher in that being 'anti-technique' is better than hinging your whole approach on how many devices you can find, you're still expected to 'use metalanguage,' and to a lot of assessors, that means pointing out rhetorical techniques. It's not all you have to do, and your focus here on connotations, positioning, and suggestions is really good, but it wouldn't hurt to chuck in a few more labels for the devices you can find. For your SAC (if you've still got that coming up), don't worry about it, but for the exam, it'd be safest to balance things out a bit more

[BNard]

Thanks so much for this Lauren, extremely helpful to have someone give such in depth feedback.