VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 6

(1/5) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:
Can it be? An AA week posted up on Monday? :O

This week’s piece (only one this week) is shorter so the emphasis will be more on the actual quality of your analysis rather than how long your analysis is or how many techniques you identify because at the end of the day, quality > quantity when it comes to scoring well here.


--- Quote ---Background: This letter to the editor was written in response to a comment made by a sports reporter, Sally Jenkins. It's a fairly old letter to the editor but whatevs. Basically video surfaced of this NFL player Ray Rice a couple years ago striking his then fiancée in an elevator during a heated interchange. Jenkins then described this guy’s actions with the euphemism of “going all Flinstone on his wife”. Martin Kramer then chimed in with a letter to the editor basically arguing that this comparison should not have been made. Analyse the Martin Kramer piece below.

Oh yeah and "yabba dabba doo" was Fred Flinstone's catchphrase.
--- End quote ---

Giving cavemen a good name


Sally Jenkins described the reprehensible actions of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice as “going all Flinstone on his wife” in her July 29 Sports column, “Provoking debate, and disgust.” As any fan of that venerable show will tell you, Fred Flinstone had his faults but he loved and respected his wife, Wilma, often referring to her as his queen. Every day, Fred would wear out his feet driving to the rock quarry. He would then work until the whistle blew so he could slide down the back of his brontosaurus rock mover and head home to Wilma. What Mr Rice did could perhaps qualify as a stereotype of cavemen behaviour, Ms Jenkins, but yabba dabba don’t lump Fred Flinstone in with that type of behaviour.

- Martin Kramer, Takoma Park

amigos:
Bit rusty, but here's my go. :)

Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’. In the letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent.

Kramer seemingly begins by contextualizing his piece through citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably true. Kramer reinforces this effect as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners.

Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such word that presents the character as almost antithetical to Rice immediately discredits Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. This willingness to go to both physical and effort extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.

zhen:
I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.

Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife", contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter through establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, which has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections in his character. However, Kramer extol's Fred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through underscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of him. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flinstone, with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conduct, Kramer dichotomises the two individuals, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another.

scout:
A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confronts Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone, presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character.


Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions and thus, portraying his views as impartial. However, Kramer proceeds to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the title "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority - demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner of his family. This is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressive. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent disposition.

Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviour. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitude to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women.

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: amigos on July 11, 2017, 09:52:20 pm ---Bit rusty, but here's my go. :)

Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’Nice contextualisation. Just make sure your sentences get no longer than this.. In the 'his letter to the editor' seems to flow a bit nicer. 'The letter to the editor' is a bit detatched. letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent try not to be too speculative. This is quite an obvious assumption, but best to be on the safe side and avoid conclusive statements..

Kramer seemingly begins by contextualizing his piece throughby citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably truehmm...I'm having difficulty linking these two points. I get the general gist, but am still quite confused.. Kramer reinforces this effect as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This endeavours/seeks/aims to anger. Try not to be speculative.  angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners. I understand the point that you are trying to make. But again, it's not all that clear. I think you require more evidence to substantiate conclusions like this

Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such word be most specific with your relation. 'Kramer's use of the adjective, 'venerable,' seeks to present....' that presents the character as almost antithetical to Rice immediately discreditsI don't think this is the right verb. It's disrupting the expression of your sentence. Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. This willingness to go to both physical and effort extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.nice


--- End quote ---

Well done! To improve, just make sure you are explaining things clearly. I think you can achieve this by cutting down on sentence length. Short and sharp sentences are great! Keep up the good work  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page