[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

[tea.squaredd]

This should keep me motivated to write essays!
 

Texts: Richard III, Ransom
Context: A Streetcar named Desire, Spies
SS Aim: At least 40.

__________________________________________________________________________________

** you will be required to provide internal hyperlinks to your essays on this post - see my thread to see what I mean **

January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis - this will need to be hyperlinked

[tea.squaredd]

Here it goes. I haven't written many LA before and my year 11 english experience was... not very educational. I did however depend largely on shinnys book! (minor endorsement if anyone comes across this). Currently reading other ppl's work to correct...


The recent deaths of over a hundred boat people have caused serious debate over who is to be blamed for these unnecessary incidents. Whilst some contend that there are multiple sources of blame, others are pointing fingers towards the government. Such a polemic is shared by Andrew Bolt in the opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (17/12/2010) in The Herald Sun, which contends that Gillard’s weak laws on immigration are causing the tragic deaths of refugees coming to Australia by boat through a seemingly accusatory tone. The opinion piece is targeted at the general public.

Bolt initiates the article by tying the dysphemism ‘lured’ to the Government’s immigration policy to highlight how the Government is guilty for the deaths of the drowned victims. This may cause readers to feel grievance and resent towards the Government’s current policies. Such emotions are further compounded throughout the article by dysphemisms such as ‘pious’, ‘delicate’ and ‘criminally reckless’. Moreover, Bolt continues to cast aspersions onto the policies by claiming such laws act as ‘sugar’ to immigrants. Readers are made aware that because of this ‘sugar’, it is ‘tempting’ hundreds of immigrants into boats to sail a deathly sea. In essence, readers are exposed to the fact that their government is responsible for the recent tragedies.

Maintaining his stance, the writer throws a chain of statistics at the audience – in an attempt to show the seriousness of the situation and to confront readers with the number of deaths. Henceforth, a call to action and pity may be aroused in readers and in turn, encourages readers to take a stance in the issue and start pointing fingers towards Gillard. In an attempt to strike at the empathetic heartstrings of readers, the writer presents a story of two of the victims whom previously appeared on ABC television. In doing so, the author suggests that something must be done about the current policies.

Subsequently, by acknowledging that the government denounced those who ‘counted the dead were scum’, Bolt expresses his concerns on who is to blame and who the real ‘scum’ are. By doing so, readers are invited to consider the moral justice of our political system and Bolt is also suggestive of the guilty trying to hide. The writer repeatedly argues that the government cries that it is ‘too soon’ to blame themselves, yet the government are ‘casting mud on everyone but her’ and are claiming that we wait until we ‘are fully informed by facts’ before throwing guilt upon people. Thus, the writer casts doubt upon the competency of the government because the readers are made to wait when in fact, it is not ‘too soon’ to blame as the facts are already here. The facts are supported by experts such as Ian Rintoul. Consequently, readers may question the integrity of our government. Additionally, Bolt makes readers aware that they are the ones who the government currently ‘fling blame’ on which may cause readers to feel outraged and encourage readers to take a stand against the government and its weak laws. In doing so, the author intends to adorn a sense of hatred regarding the government.

Complementing the opinion piece, Andrew Bolt presents a picture in which a boat full of refugees are riding a terrible wave. It is easy to see that the fragile boat can be turned over with absolute ease, which generalises all refugee boat rides to be as dangerous as this. This idea is reinforced with all occupants of the boat are seen to be desperately clinging for their lives. Readers are subjected to the horrors and hazards of such manners of transport and may be quick to stand against our current soft laws which are allowing such behaviour.

The crux of the opinion piece stems from its continuous ridicule of the competency and integrity of the governments and weak immigration policies as well as providing strings of evidence which supports the contention. Though much of the audience could be persuaded by the article, others such as those who support these laws so that more boat people can successfully live in Australia may be alienated.

[slammy]

I'm not really great at assessing how good a piece is..but I think overall it's well written. Most of your sentences aren't too long and get to the point, but i think there's one or two which seem a bit confusing particularly the 4th paragraph.
But not a bad job!

[Plan-B]

Overall, it looks good to me
But Im no English expert.

However, I did pick up on a few things.
- Your third paragraph: "maintaining his stance, the writer throws a chain of statistics at the audience...", could use some evidence and quotes from the article.
- Your conclusion in my opinion could use an extra sentence or two, in order to summarise the points you've made a little better.

- Occasional occurences in colloquial expressions. E.g. "Pointing fingers towards Gillard", "It is easy to see (can be replaced with "It is evident"?)" and "riding a terrible wave)"
- Occasional repetition. E.g. "Henceforth, a call to action and pity may be aroused in readers and in turn, encourages readers to take a stance in the issue." Call to action and take a stance generally have the same meaning/implications? Not too sure.
- Certain expressions are trying to provide too much information imo, and somewhat disrupts your fluency. For instance: "By doing so, readers are invited to consider the moral justice of our political system and Bolt is also suggestive of the guilty trying to hide." << The last part feels tacked on slightly and could be worded better imo.

- You have an interesting vocabulary But try to refrain from using complicated words such as "dysphemism" more than once.
- Insightful analysis too. I couldn't pick up on the generalisation of the visual aid and didn't see the reference between sugar and temptations until after I finished writing. I guess I fell for the persuasive technique :p

[Allygator]

 

[lexitu]

7-8: You need to do more than tell us what the writer is trying to suggest or have the reader feel - you need to say why in some instances. Sometimes you need to link to the big picture after that why. Also, not enough image discussion and explanation of how it complements the text specifically. That's where you can improve. Good work though

[DNAngel]

For someone who hasn't written many LA before, this is quite impressive! 

I don't consider myself one of the best English students, but I can offer some advice for your piece:

- Your introduction should notify the reader that a picture accompanies the article
- In the second body paragraph, 'the writer throws a chain of statistics at the audience', I would of liked to have known what 'chain of statistics' is thrown (as someone has already said) 
- A bit more evidence from the article

Other than those points I have just mentioned, your piece was coherent, logical and well-written overall.

I would give it a score of 8.5/10

Well Done 

[Streaker]

7/10.

Improvements:

- A bit too much detail on what the author is trying to say rather than what the reader is supposed to feel. At the end of each device analysis, ask yourself: What is the writer trying to make the reader feel?

- In your third body paragraph (fourth paragraph in the essay), you list a plethora of quotes and evidence from the article with very little analysis. Perhaps try to include a little less evidence and focus more on trying to deeply analyse the most relevant evidence.

- In addition to my criticism above (about providing a lot of evidence and not enough analysis), you finish that paragraph with an 'umbrella'-like analysis which somewhat sums up all that evidence. Avoid this. Use word-level analysis (i.e. focusing on a particular word and then writing about how it is supposed to make the reader think or feel - be as specific as you can. E.g. 'casting mud on everyone but her' - write about how it provokes an image in the readers mind of something as grotesque as mud being hurled at everyone except her, subsequently positioning the readers to feel indignant at such a perceived injustice, or something along those lines.

Overall, a very fluent piece with sound expression and adequate use of evidence.