VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2017 LA Club - Week 1
patriciarose:
haven’t done language analysis since term 3 of year 11, so i should probably warn you in advance that this is horrific lmao. (also i skipped the entire middle because five minute analysis ftw) this is such a great idea to practice though! i’ll mark one or two tomorrow (:
Charles Slack, in his letter to the editor, "The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee," decries sardonically the idea that Harper Lee’s legacy remains anything less than the stellar author of “one of the most beloved [literary] works.” Moreover, he contends, a plethora of less fortunate writers covet her success. Slack opens his argument by enclosing the words “tragic story” in quotation marks, thus conveying both his abject disapproval of the phrase as well as his incapacity to comprehend it as applied to Lee’s life. This by extension suggests to readers that this viewpoint is unsustainable and inaccurate. The initial use of the word “beloved” connotes warm commendation, intimating to readers that Lee received considerable acclaim for her work and thus inviting them to share in the positive sentiment. Later, Slack reprises the same word to further highlight its accuracy and thus reinforce the connotations of positivity. He closes his argument by referencing the “line” of aspiring writers which endeavour to achieve Lee’s success, thereby suggesting to readers that Lee has been the subject of much enviable acclaim and so, far from pitying her, they should admire that even her “lesser” work has been a source of inspiration for “millions."
edit: the two messages below this are mine lmao. didn't want to quadruple post, sorry!
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---Due to a recent death of the author Harper Lee, Washington post has created an opinion piece labelling the sequel to ‘how to kill a mocking bird’ as a tragedy. it's a title, the author writes it in caps, you write it in caps.The audience of this piece are readers who have read ‘how to kill a mocking jay,’ mockingBIRD, not jay (; and fans of Harper Lee. i mean, don't get me wong, that is TRUE, but it seems a bit direct the way you've stated it?The piece’s contention is that the sequel , ‘Go set a watch man’ will tarnish the ‘beloved’ classic and the legacy of Lee. Charles Slack responds to this claim with a letter to the editor. Slack’s contention is that the sequel does not a tarnish Harper’s or the sequel’s legacy. He supports this contention by associating the success of the sequel, and the perceptions of the audience towards his contention. this is good but you need to be more concise. why say something in four sentences when you could say it in one. also, you don't want to waste an argument by using it in the introduction instead of analysing it in more depth later. it doesn't really matter how a contention is supported in the intro, just later on.
The author of the opinion piece’s just use his name. first and last name the first time you mention him, then after that you'll be fine sticking to just last name (: use of describing why the sequel was created is used to belittle the authenticity of the sequel. The author does this by the use of strong and sophisted language such as ‘foisted’ and ‘akin’ in order to sound more knowledgeable. This is to make the audience believe that what the author is saying is educated and therefore right. two issues with this: takes you too long to get to the point, and that analysis could literally be applied to any quote. don't get me wrong, you're not incorrect, but you could do more. The author you need to use their surname.uses the ethos of the audience, by claiming the tarnishing of Lee’s reputation was at fault because of the sequel, and claiming that the sequel was created by the public’s eagerness. This is to discredit the the authenticity of the sequel and position the reader to believe that the sequel is a completely different interpretation to the sequel. nice analysis. Charles Slack however uses logos by associating the success of the sequel to discredit the author’s view that the sequel tarnishes the legacy of Lee. This is done by Lee pointing out the rows of the lines queuing for the sequel. half of that is basically a quote so you may as well quote it, since you're analysing it already (: Lee further diminishes the author’s claim through the use of logos. He does this by poinitng that out that ‘history will place Go set a watchman in its proper context, and how to kill a mocking jay will hold it’s position as one of the most beloved works of American literature.’ i am very iffy about long quotes since it means you run the risk of having the article write your analysis for you. probably it's more beneficial to break this up a little. By doing this, it dispels fear from the audience that the sequel will somehow clash with Lee’s legacy. i've never used logos, pathos or ethos and as such can't comment. so instead i'll just add that again, it's mockingbird ahaha. this is a good analysis and i hope my comments didn't come across as mean, just trying to nitpick to help (:
--- End quote ---
forgot to tick the off-anon box, oops. the above is mine. (i'd delete the post and edit it in here but i have no idea how to, sorry!)
Mod Edit (Jamon): I have absolutely no idea what the heck is going on or how to make posts non anonymous (probably can't, that would be a security issue, ahaha). Much confusion. Anyway, umm... Post merge? ::)
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: patriciarose on May 09, 2017, 01:08:31 pm ---haven’t done language analysis since term 3 of year 11, so i should probably warn you in advance that this is horrific lmao. (also i skipped the entire middle because five minute analysis ftw) this is such a great idea to practice though! i’ll mark one or two tomorrow (:
Charles Slack, in his letter to the editor, "The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee," decries sardonically Switch these around. Sardonically decries the idea that Harper Lee’s legacy remains anything less than the stellar author Expression is a bit odd. Not entirely clear. of “one of the most beloved [literary] works.” Moreover, he contends, Really minor. But if you start this sentence in a different way (avoiding the moreover) it might sound less fragmented. a plethora of less fortunate writers covet her success. Slack opens his argument by enclosing the words “tragic story” in quotation marks, thus conveying both his abject disapproval of the phrase as well as his incapacity to comprehend it as applied to Lee’s life This is really good! . This by extension By extension, this. Sounds a bit better. suggests to readers that this viewpoint is unsustainable and inaccurate. The initial use of the word “beloved” connotes warm commendation This sentence breaks up cohesion in your analysis. It's kind of a sudden jump from your last bit of analysis. , intimating to readers that (I don't think this part is necessary) Lee received considerable acclaim for her work and thus inviting invites them to share in the positive sentiment. Later, Slack reprises the same word to further highlight its accuracy and thus reinforce the connotations of positivity Nice link . He closes his argument by referencing the “line” of aspiring writers which who, not which endeavour Not sure if endeavour is the right word here. How about aspire. to achieve Lee’s success, thereby suggesting to readers that Lee has been the subject of much enviable acclaim and so, far from pitying her, they should admire that even her “lesser” work has been a source of inspiration for “millions."
edit: the two messages below this are mine lmao. didn't want to quadruple post, sorry!
--- End quote ---
Really nice analysis. Especially since you aren't even studying English this year! Only minor details like expression and word choice need to be changed. :)
clarke54321:
:'( Sorry was mine ^^ If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!
Anonymous:
Charlie Slack’s letter to the editor “The tragedy of Harper Lee” sarcastically preaches of Harper Lee’s rather successive career as an author. Slack prompts the reader through metaphor as Lee “shatters” sale records, emphasising that Lee sold a record high amount of “Go Set a Watchman.” This reinforces that Lee is not an unsuccessful or tragedy, but someone who is known and loved by readers. He distinctly separates the books “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Go Set a Watchman” to their individual attributes, which inspires readers to hold “new and impassioned” conversations. This denotes the positive and eye opening experience the books have provided to readers. He continues to compliment Lee’s books as “one of the most beloved works”, which highlights the endless love and support the book holds, even though it was published half a century ago. Finally, Slack ends that many aspiring writers want to “experience the same tragedy”, he sarcastically points out that Lee’s life was no tragedy, and it was such a successive career that many authors want to walk in her footsteps.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version