VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 LA Club - Week 1

<< < (2/9) > >>

vcekaleidoscope:
Whoopsss- I'm a bit new to AN  :-X

Thank you so much ( please I've got a LA sac tomorrow but you've smashed this piece after over a month since you're sac)- you're absolutely right about needing to unpack the words more.
I was a bit wary of giving you feedback because I really don't think there are any faults here but I'll give this a go.
-You're structure is really good in giving evidence, explaining the effect, then the effect on readers and finally its contribution to the writer's contention
-Maybe just with you're phrase of 'completely denounces', you might come across as being more evaluative than analytical
-The phrase 'attacking' the opposition, could possibly be replaced because he seems to attack the opposing views rather than the actual opposition, also attacking might be a bit powerful of a word
(But these are really minor things!!)

Anonymous:
Good job! Keep up the great work everyone!

HopefulLawStudent:
Ah whoops. Forgot to tick the box.  :-\

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: zhen on May 01, 2017, 07:18:45 pm ---
--- End quote ---

I might be completely off here, so someone please correct me if I am, but I don't think you've interpreted the material correctly. The Washington Post isn't suggesting that Lee's life was tragic in the sense that it was full of failure and misery, but more so in the vein of a tragic hero that conventionally loses an original high status. Through the use of 'tragedy', they posit that Lee embodies this quality in that she was originally this awesome writer who wrote to herald social change, but is now, in steep descent, one that does so for public demand and no other meaningful intent. Also, the author isn't that bitter and forceful in his disapproval as you portray him as out to be, it's more like a "no, you guys are wrong" with a mocking yet passive "shut up please" at the end. Words like "condemn" and "denounce" sort of exaggerate his disapproval, and one's like "reject" are probably more correct. Nevertheless, I still marked your piece but in assumption that these misinterpretations skewed your analysis, I just marked accordingly to how you've read it. Hope it still helps :).

Charles Slack's letter to the editor "The 'tragedy' of Harper Lee" satirically The letter doesn't consistently display all of satire's three main characteristics, them being humour, exaggeration and mockery, so "satirically" probably isn't the correct word. Maybe just 'mockingly'? condemns the notion that Harper Lee's story is tragic ‘Tragic’ is a vaguely used word in the letter, so it’s best not to repeat it within your analysis. Instead, expand on it; how or why is her story ‘tragic’?, contending that a myriad of writers Myriad implies thousands and thousands, even uncountable almost, and to be frank, I doubt that much even care about who Harper Lee is, let alone be jealous of her. would be envious of her situation. Slack accentuates This means to make something even MORE notable, so it's a bit weird to use it when you haven't yet established that many love Lee's novel. that Harper's novel is "beloved by readers", which connotes admiration and respect Nice connotative analysis! :), hence embellishing Bit iffy about this word use since embellish means to make something physical more visually appealing, or a statement interesting by lying, so embellishing someone's life is a bit 'eh?' 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. Nice! ;D 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 This means to make something most prominent or important, like an “IN YO FACE” kinda thing, so it’s isn’t that correct in this circumstance. Maybe highlights or emphasizes? 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 You should try to avoid making such absolute claims in argument analysis, given that you’re analysing someone else’s work and are never really sure of their true intents. 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. Good analysis! :)

Anonymous:
^^ That's from me; just wanted to put in a disclaimer that I'm also in year 12 and have no clue if my feedback is correct. Oh, and there's probably some typo or confusing explanation somewhere in there, sorry!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page