A Gun Battle Worth Fighting
People with guns can only kill with guns if they have guns in the first place. That's what the author of the editorial, "A Gun Battle Worth Fighting," tries to send in the fiery choice of words. Like a coach giving a pep talk just before a big game, he (or she) points out the most encouraging details and a promising way of action. Using powerful syntax he boosts the spirits of the anti-gun readers, edging them to fight harder for their ideals.
The very first word in the article is an accident by no means. The author wishes to rally the anti-gun enthusiasts together with a sense of community, to give them power through unison, to tell them they are not alone. All this he wraps up in a single word: we. "WE don't have to cower..." "WE don't have to murmur..." "WE don't have to tiptoe..." He reminds his readers that, if banded together, no person is weak. Then, to give a sense of solidity, he uses short, simple words like "take on" and "a long, hard slog." Our minds are wired like engineers. We all prefer simplicity for its lack of glitches. By using simple words, the author gives the reader the feeling of a known direction and a promise to move forwards if they but stand.
While the diction gives the feeling of an unstoppable force, the author keeps his facts realistic, though not discouraging. He knows that his cause has not been on the winning side, but he also knows that more and more, problems are building for his opponents. More guns, he says, has not been keeping people safe as the gun supporters promise, and that will be their downfall.
Finally, syntax. The use of the number three in the article's syntax has profound effects on the message. Three has a feeling of completion and finality, and the author uses it to his advantage. For example, to start the article, he gives three "we don't have to"s about recent occurrences. Then he ends it with the word "No." The three paragraphs about weakness build on each other, making it seem as though the weakness shown by the given situations is final, then the author topples the whole feeling down in one word, allowing hope to blossom in the anti-gun group.
Hey Noah, I thought this post was really good. Some changes you might want to consider are articulating your thesis more concisely in the first paragraph, explicitly stating the DIDLS techniques you will talk about. That might just be personal preference though. I also felt like you could have fleshed out the paragraph about details, maybe you could have taken some quotes? You also may want to have a final conclusion paragraph but I don't think we needed one. Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI think your introduction paragraph was very good. I think you can make it a little more clear what the message that the author was trying to convey is. Similar to what Santos said about details, I think it would be helpful to give examples straight from the text when describing the diction as well so that the readers of your article can see exactly what you mean. Nice work, Noah!
ReplyDelete