VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2017 LA Club - Week 1
HopefulLawStudent:
Welcome to the first week of the 2017 Language Analysis/Analysing Argument Club!
As a reminder of how this is working...
1. Every second Monday, I post a new thread with *something* for you to analyse. (That's this!)
2. You write a short analysis and post in this thread.
3. You give feedback on someone else's analysis (though, y'know, if you wanna do more, go crazy).[/url].
And check out this post for heaps more details, and remember to ask any questions if you're not sure how it's working!
Remember to uncheck anonymity just before posting if you're happy for people to know who you are (and want to snag some cheeky upvotes ;)).
Background: On February 19, 2016, Harper Lee, best remembered as the writer of the classic To Kill a Mockingbird, tragically passed away, aged 89. That day, The Washington Post published an opinion piece entitled “No way to treat an author: How Harper Lee lost control of her legacy” (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/critics-notebook-the-shame-of-harper-lees-muddled-legacy/2016/02/19/36624b62-d723-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.75d4a5c657bb) which purported that the sequel, “Go Set a Watchman” was akin to “a publishing sham foisted on a public eager for anything from its most beloved living author”. The opinion piece claimed that the sequel had basically altered the way in which readers saw the characters for the worse and therefore had the effect of tarnishing To Kill a Mockingbird’s (and Harper Lee’s) literary legacy (this being the “tragedy” of Harper Lee). This letter to the editor was written in response to that opinion piece.
The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee
What is the ‘tragic story’ of Harper Lee?
Let’s see: She publishes a novel beloved by readers in its own time and one that, more than a half-century after publication, continues to move millions of new readers each year. Hollywood, instead of botching the job, sensitively translates the book into one of the greatest movies of all time.
Many years later, the author makes her exit by publishing another novel that shatters sales records. Though a lesser work, it inspires new and impassioned conversations about literature and race in America. History will place “Go Set a Watchman” in its proper context, and “To Kill a Mockingbird” will hold its position as one of the most beloved works of American literature.
If you think that all adds up to a tale of woe, check out the line running out the door, around the block and over the horizon: It’s writers hoping to experience the same tragedy.
- Charles Slack, Trumbull, Conn.
---
NOTE: To post in this thread, you'll first need to register an ATAR Notes account. It's free, and should take like four seconds! Then, just scroll down to the bottom of this thread, and ask your questions in the "Quick Reply" box, as shown below. :)
zhen:
I'll have a try at analysing this, but it's been over a month since my language analysis SAC, so I'm really rusty at this.
Charles Slack's letter to the editor "The 'tragedy' of Harper Lee" satirically condemns the notion that Harper Lee's story is tragic, contending that a myriad of writers would be envious of her situation. Slack accentuates that Harper's novel is "beloved by readers", which connotes admiration and respect, hence embellishing Harper's life whilst simultaneously portraying Harper as a person who is respected by society. Through this, Slack prompts the reader to view Harper as a a successful individual, hence reinforcing the idea that her life was not full of tragedy, but success. Slack progresses his argument by attacking the opposition through underscoring that Lee's "lesser work" has "inspire[d] new and impassioned conversations about literature and race", hence foregrounding the idea that this book which was deemed to have tarnished Lee's reputation, was in fact an influential novel. In doing this, Slack completely denounces the opposition's claims that the novel "Go Set a Watchman" has tarnished Lee's reputation. Furthermore, this also positions the reader to perceive these claims that Lee's life was a tragedy as ridiculous, as he stresses that even in her "lesser work" she still achieved numerous successes.
Anonymous:
So glad the LA club is on this year, it's reallyyyy not the best language analysis but here my attempt at it.
In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack sets out to negate the portrayal of Harper Lee's life as a tragedy by utilising satire to convey the magnitude of her success. Slack aggrandises the reception of Lee's novel by illustrating how it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', followed by the use of the superlative 'greatest' to describe its movie adaptation, immediately engendering derision in readers at the opinion piece's description of this, as a tragedy. Slack, depicting Lee's admitedly 'lesser book' to have ignited nation wide discussions, exemplifies the influence of her literature and subsequently highlights the absurdity in the opinion piece's claims. Continuing with his use of superlatives, coupled with positive connotations, Slack portrays Lee's debut novel as 'one of the most beloved works', inculcating in readers, admiration towards Lee's achievements, thereby inclining them to dismiss notions of Lee's ostensibly "tragic story"' as nonsensical. Through Slack's mocking tone, describing the numerous writers being envious of Lee's success referred to as a 'tragedy', readers are left staunchly opposed to idea of her legacy being destroyed by the evidently noteworthy 'Go Set a Watchman'.
Note- 'moves millions' should actually be 'move millions' but it crosses out the square brackets and whatever comes after for some reason.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 02, 2017, 12:04:32 am ---So glad the LA club is on this year, it's reallyyyy not the best language analysis but here my attempt at it.
In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack sets out to negate the portrayal of Harper Lee's life as a tragedy by utilising satire to convey the magnitude of her success. Slack aggrandises the reception of Lee's novel by illustrating how it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', followed by the use of the superlative 'greatest' to describe its movie adaptation, immediately engendering derision in readers at the opinion piece's description of this, as a tragedy. Slack, depicting Lee's admitedly 'lesser book' to have ignited nation wide discussions, exemplifies the influence of her literature and subsequently highlights the absurdity in the opinion piece's claims. Continuing with his use of superlatives, coupled with positive connotations, Slack portrays Lee's debut novel as 'one of the most beloved works', inculcating in readers, admiration towards Lee's achievements, thereby inclining them to dismiss notions of Lee's ostensibly "tragic story"' as nonsensical. Through Slack's mocking tone, describing the numerous writers being envious of Lee's success referred to as a 'tragedy', readers are left staunchly opposed to idea of her legacy being destroyed by the evidently noteworthy 'Go Set a Watchman'.
Note- 'moves millions' should actually be 'move millions' but it crosses out the square brackets and whatever comes after for some reason.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely amazing analysis. ;D It's so hard to find flaws here. I feel like the only thing I can really point out is that when you mention that the writer highlights that it is 'one of the most beloved works' and that it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', you immediately move onto the next part of your analysis or immediately jump to the intended effect on the reader without really unpacking the quote. Anyway great job. I wish I could write like you. :)
zhen:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 02, 2017, 10:37:54 am ---Absolutely amazing analysis. ;D It's so hard to find flaws here. I feel like the only thing I can really point out is that when you mention that the writer highlights that it is 'one of the most beloved works' and that it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', you immediately move onto the next part of your analysis or immediately jump to the intended effect on the reader without really unpacking the quote. Anyway great job. I wish I could write like you. :)
--- End quote ---
Forgot to tick the not anonymous box :(
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version