Gun lunacy rides high in America
By John J. Donahue
Recently, a
chain of repulsive and terrifying shootings in the United States caused a
debate to rise about gun regulations and gun rights. Some argue that guns
should be limited, whether by sales of the guns themselves, sales of
ammunition, or with background checks. Others protest such measures as they see
guns as a right that no one has the authority to regulate or limit, despite
their deadly nature. John J. Donahue uses syntax, diction, and language to
protest the recent measure by gun supporters and to argue that the fear of gun
regulation has resulted in unfair and unconstitutional practices.
Donahue
uses diction to create an antagonistic image of the NRA, the primary
organization against gun legislation. Words such as “crowing” and “overheated
rhetoric” are used to describe NRA operations, words that usually have a more
negative connotation than most, such as “enlightened” or “courageous” or “witty
rhetoric”. This obviously conveys Donahue’s disagreements and disgust of the
NRA’s methods of blocking legislation. The title of the article even uses the
words “lunacy” and “unstable gun zealot” in an attempt to send a message to the
reader that the NRA and its supporters have some doubtful judgment. Donahue
also calls the current laws as “lax” suggesting that current restrictions are
lacking.
The
language Donahue uses further augment his argument. Instead of using formal or
elevated language, Donahue uses common language. Slang like “up the ante” and
“call the shots” make Donahue less of a stranger and more like someone that you
know, someone you would listen to or chat over a beer with. Someone you can
trust.
Syntax
is also used in Donahue’s article in an attempt to persuade the reader. He uses
punctuation to emphasize certain ideas and basic concepts (“Since gun sellers
call the shots at the NRA, the lobbying group…”) and the overall format is
present tense, which is more forceful than, say, past tense. I don’t know about
you fellow reader, but that is all the connections I could find in terms of
syntax.Well, that's all folks.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteAgain, good job in your analysis, I thought I was spot-on, though my main concern was that it could have been a lot more meaty. It's as if, in the process of writing, you got wearier of the topic as time went on (I don't know if that's the case), because the paragraphs decrease in size and content as you read down the page. Your opening paragraph is a nice setup to what follows, and the analysis of diction in the second is round and full-bodied, but your third seems to be lacking something. For me, it's simply too short, with too few examples and not enough connection to how he gets the point across (though it is concise). And in the third paragraph you admit outright that you only had one example for syntax, which is an obvious problem, but what really suffers in this paragraph is your voice. I really enjoyed your previous two posts because of your distinctive voice, but it wasn't as strong in this post, especially the third paragraph. Also, you didn't have a conclusion, but neither did I; I think that's going to be a pretty prevalent problem this year. I think next time if you simply come up with more examples, then your voice won't suffer and the writing will be better, and we both have plenty of experience digging for examples.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteWell done! I really think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Your evidence was strong, supporting your warrants, particularly in your paragraph about Diction. For example, the fact that you could identify words such as, "Crowing" and "Lax" showed me you took a good amount of time to analyze the news report. I also liked the section where you addressed the usage of colloquial language. One thing that could have made this post top notch, would have been a concluding paragraph. In my opinion, this would have tied all your ideas together instead of leaving them as separate entities. In this paragraph you could have identified how all these elements worked together as a whole to create meaning. However, without this, I still think your response was very well done. I may or may not have peeked at Drew's post and I also agree on his analysis of your writing. I too think you had more "meat," as Drew were to say, at the beginning. Towards the end, your evidence slimmed down quite a bit. Focus on balancing your evidence equally among each claim. Overall, I think your analysis of this article was very well done, and I can tell you took a lot of time to analyze the document.
Don't know what happened to the text towards the end...
ReplyDeleteAlex, Drew: Yeah, I was kinda losing ground towards the end. Glad you guys pointed that out!
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great topic to post about since it is still incredibly controversial. Good analysis. I think your main problem is that you didn't really tie in DIDLS with the meaning or intent of the author. For example, you can definitely elaborate the paragraph on language and mention more on how the author proved his point. The syntax paragraph could also use more examples and clear support of how the author tried to prove his point. Try using your diction paragraph as an example for the other ones. It had plenty of clear examples! Overall, try finding more support for the points you are making and always tie them to how the author creates meaning in his work.
You got some great feedback from your peer reviewers here, Andrew, but I don't see revision based on this feedback. I'm clicking through to your October Close Reading now to see if you utilized this feedback, at least, in creating a better-supported October post that more clearly drives toward a thesis.
ReplyDelete