How about better parents?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-about-better-parents.html?scp=2&sq=november%2020%20opinion%20article&st=Search
In this article, a response to the recent debate about our education system and funding, the author makes the case that what is really needed is more parental involvement.
On a first read, the language and tone of the author is at first hard to distinguish. By the title, we know exactly what the author's ideas are, but as there seems to be nary a sentence without a quote. This projects others' voices into the article. However, we get to hear the author's voice by the quote selection and manipulation. The quote fanaticism projects an air of desiring to seem well informed and confidence inspiring. After all, how can you not trust quotes from studies and scientists? When not quoting, the author uses a semi-formal tone, creating a sense of reliability and familiarity.
Although the author does not include much slang, the diction is not particularly note-worthy. Neither poet-laureate nor trailer park, it gives the reader something of a non-impression, removing most traces of a persona.
The syntax of this piece gradually diminishes in complexity. The sentences in the last paragraph are short, repetitive, and begin with conjunctions. Although some writers might use this to emphasize a point, as the author is merely restating an opinion (or the title) it creates an impression that the author ran out of steam and slapped on an ending. The syntax is largely repetitive: brief sentence, sentence with quote. This creates a feeling that the whole article would work better as bullet points and listed information. The author has merely compiled information instead of making conclusions and explaining it.
How does the removal of a persona with diction use, or lack thereof, influence the reader's response to the writer's argument, not just to the writer himself?
ReplyDeleteAdd a sentence or more explaining how the sloppy syntax hurts the writer's attempt to make an argument.
"On a first read, the language and tone of the author is at first hard to distinguish" is redundant with the second "first" in there.
So in one paragraph you say that the author sounds familiar, knowledgeable, and reliable, and in another paragraph, she doesn't have much persona? I'd clarify that a little bit-- maybe a difference in how you phrase it, or an actual distinction in another sentence.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Murphy
I think that your analysis of the piece is pretty good and that it points to two things. That, in the first two paragraphs, the author develops his own recognizable voice which I think is worth mentioning. And secondly, that the breaking down of complexity in syntax points to a skill in the art of persuasion. That he understands to present an effective argument, that one must be able to break it down into an understandble form for everyone.
ReplyDelete