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.
Showing posts with label close. Show all posts
Showing posts with label close. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Close Reading (Nov. 18)
To Slow Warming, Tax Carbon
Most people agree that the natural environment around the world is steadily on the decline. Often, however, our goals are set too far out of reach, and we give up long before we begin. The high consumption of gas in the US is often looked down upon by environmentalists, but an oft-ignored fact, as noted by Dieter Helm, is that gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal. Citing various details and applying diction and syntax, Helm makes his point--that companies around the world should be taxed on carbon emissions--to his audience with remarkable clarity.
Rather than getting distracted by all the facts bloated to disproportion by environmentalists, Helm exposes important details to his readers, returning things to their proper perspectives. For example, he reveals that, "between 1990 and 2005, Britain’s carbon production fell by about 15 percent — but its carbon consumption rose by 19 percent, when imports were counted." By the common standard, Britain has reduced its carbon production significantly, but Helm points out that, in reality, Britain has not only failed to reduce the overall carbon emissions, but increased its contributions to the problem. Another important detail is that, though Europe has "spent lots of money on wind farms and rooftop solar panels," the global environmental situation has experienced little to no change, even growing worse as a result.
Doom and gloom aside, Mr. Helm is very careful to pick his words carefully to reflect his tone and perspective in the article. His use of diction is most clearly seen in the first two paragraphs. In an effort to appear politically neutral, Helm unearths uncommon words like "lauded" and "faulted" to describe the presidential candidates, avoiding positive and negative connotation as best possible. When he does wish to reveal his standpoint, however, he describes the cries of the environmentalist groups with the word "lamented" which comes across as "overly exaggerated wailing." Helm wants the reader to understand that, though the US doesn't spend mountains of money on under-developed, inefficient, "clean" energy, it is the small step from coal to gas that has made all the difference no matter what the environmentalists claim.
To top it all, Helm uses excellent syntax techniques--most prominently, the em dash--to draw the reader's attention to punch lines and important ideas. For example, to start his discussion on causes of increasing carbon emissions, he writes, "The main reason emissions have been going up is the rise of coal — in China, in particular." By separating the last phrase with an em dash, he causes the reader to save it for later use while he finishes his thoughts about coal consumption. This gives the idea time to mill about in the reader's mind as he or she comes slowly to the realization that, as a result of Europe's deindustrialization, coal-consuming companies are moving to China, not finding alternative, clean energy like we had hoped.
Helm makes it abundantly clear that the US, in fact, is not as far behind Europe in the effort to reduce carbon emissions after all. The result of the taxes on coal in Europe have been more harmful than beneficial. By drawing the reader to details and using specialized words to make his point, Helm shows that, in order for any plan to "save the environment" to work, every country must work together, not apart from one another. A plan to benefit the whole earth must be agreed upon and followed through as one unified body.
Most people agree that the natural environment around the world is steadily on the decline. Often, however, our goals are set too far out of reach, and we give up long before we begin. The high consumption of gas in the US is often looked down upon by environmentalists, but an oft-ignored fact, as noted by Dieter Helm, is that gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal. Citing various details and applying diction and syntax, Helm makes his point--that companies around the world should be taxed on carbon emissions--to his audience with remarkable clarity.
Rather than getting distracted by all the facts bloated to disproportion by environmentalists, Helm exposes important details to his readers, returning things to their proper perspectives. For example, he reveals that, "between 1990 and 2005, Britain’s carbon production fell by about 15 percent — but its carbon consumption rose by 19 percent, when imports were counted." By the common standard, Britain has reduced its carbon production significantly, but Helm points out that, in reality, Britain has not only failed to reduce the overall carbon emissions, but increased its contributions to the problem. Another important detail is that, though Europe has "spent lots of money on wind farms and rooftop solar panels," the global environmental situation has experienced little to no change, even growing worse as a result.
Doom and gloom aside, Mr. Helm is very careful to pick his words carefully to reflect his tone and perspective in the article. His use of diction is most clearly seen in the first two paragraphs. In an effort to appear politically neutral, Helm unearths uncommon words like "lauded" and "faulted" to describe the presidential candidates, avoiding positive and negative connotation as best possible. When he does wish to reveal his standpoint, however, he describes the cries of the environmentalist groups with the word "lamented" which comes across as "overly exaggerated wailing." Helm wants the reader to understand that, though the US doesn't spend mountains of money on under-developed, inefficient, "clean" energy, it is the small step from coal to gas that has made all the difference no matter what the environmentalists claim.
To top it all, Helm uses excellent syntax techniques--most prominently, the em dash--to draw the reader's attention to punch lines and important ideas. For example, to start his discussion on causes of increasing carbon emissions, he writes, "The main reason emissions have been going up is the rise of coal — in China, in particular." By separating the last phrase with an em dash, he causes the reader to save it for later use while he finishes his thoughts about coal consumption. This gives the idea time to mill about in the reader's mind as he or she comes slowly to the realization that, as a result of Europe's deindustrialization, coal-consuming companies are moving to China, not finding alternative, clean energy like we had hoped.
Helm makes it abundantly clear that the US, in fact, is not as far behind Europe in the effort to reduce carbon emissions after all. The result of the taxes on coal in Europe have been more harmful than beneficial. By drawing the reader to details and using specialized words to make his point, Helm shows that, in order for any plan to "save the environment" to work, every country must work together, not apart from one another. A plan to benefit the whole earth must be agreed upon and followed through as one unified body.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Close Reading (Oct 21)
Obama Will Do a Better Job
In this article, the author (unknown) attempts to prove to the reader that Obama is the better presidential candidate between him and Romney. The author's first task is to reveal the faults of the Republican candidate, bringing up details about the previous Republican president and the economic crisis that occurred during his presidential term. He continues by taking note of Obama's weak points and redirecting the attacks towards the Republican candidate, choosing his words carefully to best support his perspective. Then, with a vivid metaphor about Romney, he slams the Republican challenger one last time, "sealing the deal," so to speak, in Obama's favor.In any argumentative discussion, it is important to include ample detailed evidence supporting one's argument. Accordingly, the author of the article provides two long lists of evidence, one against the Republican party and one for Obama. The details he provides are catered specifically for the audience he hopes to persuade. For example, one of the major objects of political debates is the unemployment rate. In an effort to show that the Republicans will not do any better than Obama has, he makes reference to "the nation losing 500,000 jobs in one month" as well as several other negative economic statistics from the period during Republican administration. As far as details about Obama's achievements go, the author only goes in-depth about the positive, brushing off the evidence against the president by saying it is only a matter of time before his policies kick in or shifting the blame onto the "obstinate Republicans in Congress."
The article's author, like any good writer, keeps careful track of word connotation, being sure to apply it in ways that support his position. For example, when talking about the disappointing rate of gain in economic health, he says, "The recovery is slow, but its speed has been hampered by obstinate Republicans in Congress dead set on opposing any program that might boost Obama's reelection." Words like "hampered," "obstinate," "dead set," and "opposing," are used to describe the opposition and all carry, to some degree, negative connotation. Positive words like "recovery" and "boost," however, are used when talking about Obama.
At the climax of the entire article are four words: "No Etch A Sketch." This metaphor is used to criticize Romney's tendency to conform to his audience, changing his image to please the masses. The author carefully picked this comparison both to make Romney out to be what some call "attention whores," and to bring out the audience's childhood frustrations with a toy that claimed to bend to the will of the user, yet always created a distorted image, crushing the imagination in a fit of discouragement. Romney, he says, claims to be the answer to the problems to gain favor, but is unable to give what he promises.
With a strong metaphor, some bolstering diction, and a generous sprinkle of evidence, the author of the article constructs a convincing argument in Obama's favor. Obama may not be the perfect candidate, but he believes that, when compared with the other option, Romney, Obama is most definitely the better choice.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Close Reading (Sept. 23)
Rethinking Sleep
In "Rethinking Sleep," David Randall attempts to form and connect ideas that break the reader away from preconceived notions about sleep. Today, it is widely accepted that the average person must sleep, uninterrupted, through an eight-hour night in order to receive the necessary amount of rest essential to living out the remainder of the day. However, taking advantage of detailed data, opening conjunctions, and word connotation, Randall makes an effort to cause the reader to accept the idea that, perhaps, an interrupted session of sleep is not so bad after all.
Details are arguably the very foundation of Randall's essay. Rather than trying to reason with the reader, he does what so many grammar instructors try to get their students to do: show, don't tell. Immediately after personalizing the essay in the first paragraph, he causes the reader to understand the magnitude and importance of the issue through the use of statistics, saying "roughly 41 million people in the United States...get six hours or fewer of sleep at night." With the problem well established, he can spend the rest of the article discussing solutions.
Using data in this way causes the readers to question the system in which they live. Why, if we know all these things, do we continue to operate in damaging ways? Particularly effective is Randall's reference to research in historical sleep practices. "Segmented sleep," as he calls it, was normal even back when Chaucer wrote the "Canterbury Tales." As a counterbalance so that we cannot push that evidence aside as outdated ancient practices, Randall later provides evidence that such sleeping methods are being used even now with beneficial results. With such unmistakeable data, the reader has no choice but to accept that current sleep methods are unsatisfactory.
Plain data, however, would be completely ineffective if it were merely jumbled together with no connections through syntax to organize the thoughts. Though conjunctions as sentence openers are often frowned upon in formal writing, Randall uses them to emphasize connections, making the article flow. For example, after telling us the current solution to the sleep problem, his next sentence says, "But this directive may be part of the problem." By starting a sentence with a conjunction, Randall gives the reader a whole period's worth of time to think about the previous sentence before he destroys it with the word "but." He uses this technique multiple times throughout the article, each time stating the reader's current way of thinking, then providing a conjunction opener, magnifying the statement that follows to create better contrast.
Lastly, Randall chooses his words carefully to gain the support of his readers. Most notably, when he writes about "doctors who peddle sleep aid products" and what causes people to "reach for sleeping pills," he takes advantage of the negative connotation to portray the pharmacists as a sort of drug dealer, providing sleep-addicted customers with pills. Though he writes that the doctors are "unintentionally reinforcing" a potentially damaging idea, the connotation behind the words infer some horrific plot behind sleep aids.
Using these rhetorical techniques, David Randall shows his audience the misconceptions in today's ideas about sleep. Sleep is most certainly one of the most important factors of our lives. But our ideas about the "ideal sleeping session" may be far off the mark. Millions of people in the US are sleep deprived because they misunderstand the fact that waking up in the night is not an indicator of a stressed mind.
In "Rethinking Sleep," David Randall attempts to form and connect ideas that break the reader away from preconceived notions about sleep. Today, it is widely accepted that the average person must sleep, uninterrupted, through an eight-hour night in order to receive the necessary amount of rest essential to living out the remainder of the day. However, taking advantage of detailed data, opening conjunctions, and word connotation, Randall makes an effort to cause the reader to accept the idea that, perhaps, an interrupted session of sleep is not so bad after all.
Details are arguably the very foundation of Randall's essay. Rather than trying to reason with the reader, he does what so many grammar instructors try to get their students to do: show, don't tell. Immediately after personalizing the essay in the first paragraph, he causes the reader to understand the magnitude and importance of the issue through the use of statistics, saying "roughly 41 million people in the United States...get six hours or fewer of sleep at night." With the problem well established, he can spend the rest of the article discussing solutions.
Using data in this way causes the readers to question the system in which they live. Why, if we know all these things, do we continue to operate in damaging ways? Particularly effective is Randall's reference to research in historical sleep practices. "Segmented sleep," as he calls it, was normal even back when Chaucer wrote the "Canterbury Tales." As a counterbalance so that we cannot push that evidence aside as outdated ancient practices, Randall later provides evidence that such sleeping methods are being used even now with beneficial results. With such unmistakeable data, the reader has no choice but to accept that current sleep methods are unsatisfactory.
Plain data, however, would be completely ineffective if it were merely jumbled together with no connections through syntax to organize the thoughts. Though conjunctions as sentence openers are often frowned upon in formal writing, Randall uses them to emphasize connections, making the article flow. For example, after telling us the current solution to the sleep problem, his next sentence says, "But this directive may be part of the problem." By starting a sentence with a conjunction, Randall gives the reader a whole period's worth of time to think about the previous sentence before he destroys it with the word "but." He uses this technique multiple times throughout the article, each time stating the reader's current way of thinking, then providing a conjunction opener, magnifying the statement that follows to create better contrast.
Lastly, Randall chooses his words carefully to gain the support of his readers. Most notably, when he writes about "doctors who peddle sleep aid products" and what causes people to "reach for sleeping pills," he takes advantage of the negative connotation to portray the pharmacists as a sort of drug dealer, providing sleep-addicted customers with pills. Though he writes that the doctors are "unintentionally reinforcing" a potentially damaging idea, the connotation behind the words infer some horrific plot behind sleep aids.
Using these rhetorical techniques, David Randall shows his audience the misconceptions in today's ideas about sleep. Sleep is most certainly one of the most important factors of our lives. But our ideas about the "ideal sleeping session" may be far off the mark. Millions of people in the US are sleep deprived because they misunderstand the fact that waking up in the night is not an indicator of a stressed mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)