http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/23/do-good-debaters-make-good-presidents/debates-are-slugfests-that-promote-extremism
Debates are Slugfests that Promote Extremism
The diction choice of the title pretty much sets the informal tone for this article. The author doesn't really try to put on any kind polished diction choices, giving it the sense of debating politics with Aunt Jane and Uncle Jimmy. Sure, they're reasonably informed, but this isn't what they do for a job. It gives the article a trustworthy, familiar feeling, but not necessarily the most formal. The use of some light slang permeates the article.
The author also employs informal syntax. Many sentences begin with conjunctions and follow informal speech patterns. One gets a feeling that this is exactly as the author talks, it creates an almost chummy feeling.
Saving the article from feeling like an undereducated piece of mush, the author incorporates sophisticated detail. Including the Douglass/Lincoln debates was an effective tool in conveying knowledge and being able to trace continuities. Although bringing up Reagan is not particularly impressive, the author provides good examples of how debates swayed the election.
I appreciate the fact that I can actually take your own distinct voice away from your writing, which makes this whole process of reviewing a bit less dull.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your ideas, I thought you brought up some interesting points and ideas on the piece. I might advise that you give me more exact examples of what you have in mind when you refer to "slang" within the piece. Also, I think we're supposed to connect our close reading to some sort of meaning? I think you may have left that part out here.
I do like your comparison to the Aunt and Uncle, and your use of the word "chummy". It gives me a good idea of the author's attitude and their goal of reaching out to the reader, and gives me a good idea of how you view the author since it's such a precise word.
Meaning, meaning, meaning. Your techniques are good. Your effects are perfect. Through your writing, you even draw me in and make me want to read the article! Yet, how does each technique and effect relate to the author's meaning? Why is there an informal tone? I would say this is the main thing you should stress when writing future posts!
ReplyDeleteI think this analysis is missing a few things, particularly direct quotes and an overall message or meaning. Give an example of the piece and, why did the writer do what they did, you know?
ReplyDelete