Mandela was avatar of upending world
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/opinion/rothkopf-mandela-of-his-time/index.html?hpt=op_t1
Nelson Mandela was, to say the least, a legendary character. Following his death, a number of people wrote tributes and articles in remembrance of this man. This is one of the many I articles of that I speak. David Rothkopf uses diction, syntax, and language to convey the unique greatness in Nelson Mandela.
The diction that Rothkopf uses illustrates not only his respect for Nelson Mandela but also his belief in that Mandela was a one-of-the-kind great figure for the entire world. Mandela was described as "hope incarnate", singling him out as not only unique, but something greater. The diction that describe his past life further conveys the greatness that the author felt about Mandela, for example: "remarkable" and "graceful and dignified" serve not only to compliment a man, but also conveys to the reader a sense of greatness from a man that has past.
The language that Rothkopf uses is conversational, yet reflective.
However, of all the literary devices that Rothkopf uses, his use of syntax is the most prevalent. Particularly his use of parallelism. Three consecutive paragraphs begin with "Mandela", not only emphasizing the subject of his article, but also using the name in a kind of reverence. The parallelism also develops in the same section of the article. "He was a powerful symbol..." and "He was hope incarnate" and "He was a message..." emphasizes the figure of Mandela as an "avatar" of a world in turmoil. Rothkopf also uses parallelism to construct a homage to Mandela's achievements: "The unshakeable has been shaken" and "The unbreakable had been broken" further emphasizing Mandela as not one of ordinary men.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of diction and syntax hold strong evidence. You could focus more on analysis, but overall they are good. Explaining how the choices affect the reader and why the author chose them at all is the main point of exploring the pieces. Parallelism is a great area to focus in the piece. It is a unique technique and can be used in a great way if it is done correctly. In this case, it seems to pull the reader in continuously, so the focus is never lost.
You should add more to your discussion of language, by adding examples and explaining what the language does for the whole piece. Your essay is in the past tense, and all pieces should be described in the present tense.
It is interesting that you say the diction is controversial. Is it only able to be controversial because Mandela is a controversial figure, or is it something inherent to the language?
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that you have three areas of DIDLS, but you allow yourself to be vague and so your sentences suffer as you end them briefly when all I want is to read more.NOOO! Yeah, I mean I would love to hear more of your thoughts on language because...I'm not exactly sure that one sentence covers it. Nice job on the sentence though. And even though you focus more on the areas of diction and syntax, as one of your readers, I truly appreciate when you provide examples with quotes. I can see that Mandela is not just a great man, he is "hope incarnate". Also, beware of using first person. I about died(not really) when Ms. Holmes posted for us not to use "I". Sooo elaborate more on your sentences because they are interesting and they are begging to be surrounded by other words and sentences. Lastly, I think you're the first post I've read where parallelism is mentioned. Nice!
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points regarding the use of DIDLS in this article, but I think you could have backed them up with more details and supporting evidence. You only briefly touched on the language aspect, which is a major part of your thesis. Also, I think your discussion of diction could have been a lot more specific. You could have talked about whether it's concrete or abstract, colloquial or formal, etc., rather than stating a few examples and saying how they describe Mandela. I liked your discussion of the author's use of parallelism in the syntax paragraph. I think in general if you beefed up your paragraphs with more details and clarity, you would have a pretty rockin' response.