VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 6

<< < (3/5) > >>

Anonymous:
Following sports commentator Sally Jenkins’ response to NFL player Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancé, Martin Kramer composes a letter to the editor, ‘Giving cavemen a good name’, addressing Jenkins’ ‘provoking’ comparison between the sports star and a well-loved cartoon character. Kramer engages with fans of the family friendly show, asserting that Jenkins’ is unjust towards the ‘venerable’ ‘Fred Flinstone’, unlawfully associating him with domestic violence.
Kramer initiates his response by discussing Jenkins’ comments and their effect on sports fans. He includes sourced quotations, ‘Provoking debate, and disgust’, to justify and support his own disappointment in Jenkins’ exposition. By commencing his piece using factual information, Kramer ensures that his readers do not approach his argument with a predetermined bias. Through his inclusion of deliberately cited material, Kramer is able to implicitly notion that even her ‘Sports column’ fans are ashamed of her unjust comparison, validating the underlying implications of his opening statement; that Jenkins’ response was inappropriate and equally ‘reprehensible’. 
Kramer continues his piece by introducing his argument; that ‘Fred Flinstone’ is above the ‘cavemen’ like behaviour of Rice. In his analysis of well-known cartoon, Kramer acknowledges that Flinstone ‘had his faults’, immediately addressing the rebuttal of any critiques. He thus ensures that the remainder of his argument is infallible. Kramer resumes his argument, asserting that because Flinstone ‘loved and respected his wife’, Jenkins’ cannot make such a comparison between him and the abusive Rice. Kramer then lists honourable traits of Flinstone, supporting his declaration of the show’s ‘venerable[ness]’ to provide evidence for his readers to accept and agree with his contention; that it is immoral of Jenkins’ to associate acts of domestic violence with a family-friendly show and such an admirable character.
Fundamentally, Kramer seeks to devalue the writing and opinion of Jenkins’ because of her comparison between ‘Fred Flinstone’ and the abusive Rice. He implies that the values of the show are in opposition to domestic violence, indicated by the commendable behaviour of Flinstone towards his wife. Ultimately, Kramer intends on convincing his readers that the association fabricated by Jenkins’ is both immoral and unjust, and that fans of the show should be opposed to her ‘Prov[ocative]’ response.

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on July 16, 2017, 08:41:40 pm ---Following sports commentator Sally Jenkins’ response to NFL player Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancé, Martin Kramer composes 'compose' is more for music or poetry. It's a bit out of place here a letter to the editor, ‘Giving cavemen a good name’, addressing Jenkins’ ‘provoking’ comparison between the sports star and a well-loved cartoon character. Kramer engages with fans of the family friendly show, asserting that Jenkins’ is unjust towards the ‘venerable’ ‘Fred Flinstone’, unlawfully associating him with domestic violence. good.

Kramer initiates his response by simplify --> 'Kramer begins by' discussing Jenkins’ comments and their effect on sports fans vague - what kind of effect? The topic sentence should establish the argument as precisely as possible, so be more specific here . He includes sourced from...? quotations, ‘Provoking debate, and disgust’, to justify and support his own disappointment in Jenkins’ exposition Since you've included a quote, try to make your analysis specific to that quote. E.g. by analysing 'disgust' or 'provoking' and the feelings it elicits. Also, include the effect on readers . By commencing his piece using factual information, Kramer ensures that his readers do not approach his argument with a predetermined bias it's correct, but is too generic. . Through his inclusion of deliberately cited material, Kramer is able to implicitly posit the notion that even her ‘Sports column’ fans are ashamed of her unjust comparison, validating the underlying implications of his opening statement explain this link a little more (i.e. how the outcry from 'sports column' fans = validation of argument); that Jenkins’ response was inappropriate and equally ‘reprehensible’don't quote without analysis..  Look more towards analysing Kramer's actual language choices in this paragraph

Kramer continues his piece by introducing his argument;simplify --> Kramer continues by arguing that that ‘Fred Flinstone’ is above the ‘cavemen’ like behaviour of Rice clumsily worded. In his analysis of well-known cartoon, unnecessary Kramer acknowledges that Flinstone ‘had his faults’, immediately addressing the rebuttal of any critiques. He thus ensures that the remainder of his argument is infallible I think using 'infallible' is too conclusive - explain how 'had his faults' = infallible argument?. Kramer resumes his argument, asserting then asserts that because Flinstone ‘loved and respected his wife’, Jenkins’ cannot make such a comparison between him and the abusive Rice. Kramer then lists honourable traits of Flinstone evidence? And analyse this evidence?, supporting his declaration of the show’s ‘venerable[ness]’ to provide evidence for his readers to accept and agree with his contention; that it is immoral of Jenkins’ to associate acts of domestic violence with a family-friendly show and such an admirable character.

Fundamentally, Kramer seeks to devalue the writing and opinion of Jenkins’ because of her comparison between ‘Fred Flinstone’ and the abusive Rice. He implies that the values of the show are in opposition to domestic violence, indicated by the commendable behaviour of Flinstone towards his wife. You could combine the 2 sentences to be more concise Ultimately, Kramer intends on convincing to convince his readers that the association fabricated by Jenkins’ is both immoral and unjust, and that fans of the show should be opposed to her ‘Prov[ocative]’ response.


--- End quote ---

scout:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on July 16, 2017, 11:29:08 am ---Very good job clarke54321 on your feedback! Would defs +1,000,000 if I could. On top of your solid feedback, I would also like to add:

--- End quote ---

Hi HopefulLawStudent, as always, thanks so much for your feedback! It always gives me a new mission to go on :) .

1 question - how would you have analysed the pun: "but yabba dabba don’t lump Fred Flinstone in with that type of behaviour."

Anonymous:
First ever AA club analysis! Hope it's not too bad ;)

Sally Jenkins’ comment regarding a heavily debated video that surfaced of NFL player Ray Rice striking his fiancée, describing him as akin to “going all Flinstone on his wife,’. Martin Kramers’ letter to the editor aims to reject this claim, discrediting Jenkins’ claims by painting Fred Flintstone in a positive light to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character.

To begin his piece, Kramer aims to prove his sense of practicality regarding what Rice did, describing his actions as ‘reprehensible’ as a way of showing readers that he too, condemns his actions as unacceptable. He continues his attempt at making the reader feel as though they can agree with his claim, suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” of the “venerable” show, intending to prove that the TV program ‘The Flinstones’ deserves respect. He then moves on to disproving Jenkins comment, suggesting that as “he loved and respected his wife,” Fred Flintstone is nothing like the quite unacceptable actions of Rice. Telling readers that Fred referred to his wife as a “queen”, a word which connotes that he idolised her aims to further show a distance between the character and Rice. He reminds readers that Fred Flintstone was a man who worked for his wife, and by saying that he “worked until the whistle blew so he could…return home to Wilma” is used to further emphasise Kramer’s claim that Fred was a loving, decent man.

Kramer does try to prove that he is not totally disrespecting Jenkins when he addresses her in a more understanding, educating tone. By using the word “perhaps”, he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together. He then proves her wrong, as instead of ‘Flintstone,’ he qualifies Rice’s actions as “a stereotype of caveman behaviour,” which intends to depict to readers an image of rough, indecent actions akin to cavemen, and demands her to “yabba yabba don’t lump Fred Flintstone in with that type of behaviour,” showing that he wants to present Fred Flintstone as a more decent character who is not comparable to Rice.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on July 19, 2017, 06:19:31 pm ---First ever AA club analysis! Hope it's not too bad ;)

Sally Jenkins’ comment regarding a heavily debated video that surfaced of NFL player Ray Rice striking his fiancée, described him as akin to “going all Flinstone on his wife,. Martin Kramers’ letter to the editor aims to reject this claim, discrediting Jenkins’ claims by painting Fred Flintstone in a positive light to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character.

To begin his piece, Kramer aims to prove his sense of practicality regarding what Rice did, describing his actions as ‘reprehensible’ as a way of showing readers that he too, condemns his actions as unacceptable. He continues his attempt at making the reader feel as though they can agree with his claim, suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” of the “venerable” show, intending to prove that the TV program ‘The Flinstones’ deserves respect. He then moves on to disproving Jenkins comment, suggesting that as “he loved and respected his wife,” Fred Flintstone is nothing like the quite unacceptable actions of Rice. Telling readers that Fred referred to his wife as a “queen”, a word which connotes that he idolised her aims to further show a distance between the character and Rice. He reminds readers that Fred Flintstone was a man who worked for his wife, and by saying that he “worked until the whistle blew so he could…return home to Wilma” is used to further emphasise Kramer’s claim that Fred was a loving, decent man.

Kramer does try to prove that he is not totally disrespecting Jenkins when he addresses her in a more understanding, educating tone. By using the word “perhaps”, he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together. He then proves her wrong, as instead of ‘Flintstone,’ he qualifies Rice’s actions as “a stereotype of caveman behaviour,” which intends to depict to readers an image of rough, indecent actions akin to cavemen, and demands her to “yabba yabba don’t lump Fred Flintstone in with that type of behaviour,” showing that he wants to present Fred Flintstone as a more decent character who is not comparable to Rice.

--- End quote ---

Don't know why this published anonymously! I also just made a quick edit, so read this one please :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page