Essay
The technique aspect that stands out most from this essay is the voice employed by the writer. He is writing about childhood; a time when life is a game full of adventure and fantasy. His voice supports this because he speaks in choppy sentences and writes about the wonders of shadows on the wall and the magic sounds of street vendors outside. This mix of ideas along with the syntax is representative of the way a child sees the world and thinks about it.
However, the accidental spelling errors such as "cooky" for cookie, and poor use of grammatical punctuation do not add to the childish tone. Perhaps it would be cute if it were used obviously throughout the whole essay, but since it isn't, we have to conclude that it was just poor writing that detracts from the message.
As an AP essay, this reflective essay would not do very well. Although the lack of advanced technique is in-keeping with the childhood theme, it does not seem to be done purposefully. AP graders would not appreciate the young tone, even if it did correlate with theme. To describe the childhood events from a more mature and advanced point of view will take this reflective essay to the level of AP.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Editorial Analysis
Editorial
This opinion editorial begins by stating, "There is a world of difference between a right to speak and an obligation to publish," which is its main thesis. The use of a thesis in the first sentence is a bold yet effective way to make your point known right off the bat. The no-nonsense approach shows that the author is serious about their opinion and therefore the reader reacts in a positive way. The author goes on to describe the author of the controversial book as being "self-evidently disturbed", and having "shameful views". Strong statements such as these give the reader a horrible, psychopathic view of the author. The use of powerful diction supports the thesis of the editorial and is therefore persuasive to the reader.
Along with diction, the claims that the editorialist makes to support his thesis are very strong. He provides examples of controversial, historic literature and then compares them to the non-literary value of the pedophilia book. These examples makes the well-read reader recognize a stark contrast between them, and agree further with the overall thesis.
Another great use of technique that is employed here is the counterargument. The editorial agrees that the government has to give 1st Amendment rights to everyone, but it is not necessarily Amazon's job to do so. They are a business, and in acting in their own interests, can decide to sell or not sell anything they choose. They have done so before with terrorist-type literature, and are entitled to do the same here.
Finally, the article ends with the statement, "The ever-popular "How to Kill" is still listed on the site." Just as the editorial began with a bold statement of meaning, it ends with one also. The reader is affected emotionally by the thought of a book teaching how to kill, and is therefore sold on the thesis.
If this editorial was compared to an AP thesis, it would be very successful. Its thesis is clearly written, its claims support the thesis, and there are specific examples and even a counterargument mixed in.
This opinion editorial begins by stating, "There is a world of difference between a right to speak and an obligation to publish," which is its main thesis. The use of a thesis in the first sentence is a bold yet effective way to make your point known right off the bat. The no-nonsense approach shows that the author is serious about their opinion and therefore the reader reacts in a positive way. The author goes on to describe the author of the controversial book as being "self-evidently disturbed", and having "shameful views". Strong statements such as these give the reader a horrible, psychopathic view of the author. The use of powerful diction supports the thesis of the editorial and is therefore persuasive to the reader.
Along with diction, the claims that the editorialist makes to support his thesis are very strong. He provides examples of controversial, historic literature and then compares them to the non-literary value of the pedophilia book. These examples makes the well-read reader recognize a stark contrast between them, and agree further with the overall thesis.
Another great use of technique that is employed here is the counterargument. The editorial agrees that the government has to give 1st Amendment rights to everyone, but it is not necessarily Amazon's job to do so. They are a business, and in acting in their own interests, can decide to sell or not sell anything they choose. They have done so before with terrorist-type literature, and are entitled to do the same here.
Finally, the article ends with the statement, "The ever-popular "How to Kill" is still listed on the site." Just as the editorial began with a bold statement of meaning, it ends with one also. The reader is affected emotionally by the thought of a book teaching how to kill, and is therefore sold on the thesis.
If this editorial was compared to an AP thesis, it would be very successful. Its thesis is clearly written, its claims support the thesis, and there are specific examples and even a counterargument mixed in.
Book Review
Book Review
This book review written by Liesl Schillinger about The Summer We Read Gatsby by Danielle Ganek. She begins by telling the story of how Baz Luhrmann, an Australian filmmaker, bought the rights to The Great Gatsby. Schillinger specifically mentions Luhrmann saying, “I own the rights to ‘Gatsby'. I own the rights to it and a whole lot of other books.” She is upset by the level of unimportance that Luhrmann is placing on this "greatest of the Great American Novels". She is starting off the review by stating the importance of Gatsby, and therefore setting the bar pretty high for Ganek's novel which has 'Gatsby' in the name.
As soon as Schillinger has praised Gatsby as being one of the greatest American novels of all time, she goes on to say that it "has about as much in common with “Gatsby” as Diet Coke has with Perrier-Jouët." This does not bode well for Summer. Although we've now established that Summer is not going to join the list of great American novels, Schillinger does give it its fair amount of praise. She praises its light-hearted parallels to Gatsby, although still not comparing its literary value to that of the original Gatsby.
However, this is basically where all the analysis of the book ends. Schillinger goes on to summarize the book extensively, which is a strange tactic for a book review. Without any sort of argumentative/claim approach to the review, the reader is left feeling unsatisfied. Am I being recommended the book or not? I fully understand the parallels in Summer to Gatsby, but I don't know if it's worth my time to read it. Gatsby is a story that many
Overall, I believe that Schillinger's article fails as a book review because there is barely any opinionated writing. However, the fact that she is a regular employed writing critic of the New York Times makes me question my judgement. Having such a prestigious job title, I wonder if maybe I'm just reading it wrong...? Perhaps this 'book review' was meant to be more of a sneak peak rather than a critical analysis.
This book review written by Liesl Schillinger about The Summer We Read Gatsby by Danielle Ganek. She begins by telling the story of how Baz Luhrmann, an Australian filmmaker, bought the rights to The Great Gatsby. Schillinger specifically mentions Luhrmann saying, “I own the rights to ‘Gatsby'. I own the rights to it and a whole lot of other books.” She is upset by the level of unimportance that Luhrmann is placing on this "greatest of the Great American Novels". She is starting off the review by stating the importance of Gatsby, and therefore setting the bar pretty high for Ganek's novel which has 'Gatsby' in the name.
As soon as Schillinger has praised Gatsby as being one of the greatest American novels of all time, she goes on to say that it "has about as much in common with “Gatsby” as Diet Coke has with Perrier-Jouët." This does not bode well for Summer. Although we've now established that Summer is not going to join the list of great American novels, Schillinger does give it its fair amount of praise. She praises its light-hearted parallels to Gatsby, although still not comparing its literary value to that of the original Gatsby.
However, this is basically where all the analysis of the book ends. Schillinger goes on to summarize the book extensively, which is a strange tactic for a book review. Without any sort of argumentative/claim approach to the review, the reader is left feeling unsatisfied. Am I being recommended the book or not? I fully understand the parallels in Summer to Gatsby, but I don't know if it's worth my time to read it. Gatsby is a story that many
Overall, I believe that Schillinger's article fails as a book review because there is barely any opinionated writing. However, the fact that she is a regular employed writing critic of the New York Times makes me question my judgement. Having such a prestigious job title, I wonder if maybe I'm just reading it wrong...? Perhaps this 'book review' was meant to be more of a sneak peak rather than a critical analysis.
Class notes: 11/8-11/12
Structuring
- Structuring by technique does NOT receive an 8 or 9
- Better to structure as claim, claim, claim, etc...
Thesis
- Does not have to be 1 sentence
- Must be clear & achieve ALL goals mentioned in the prompt (T.A.P. = Thesis Answers Prompt)
Time Frame Breakdown
- 5 minutes analyzing prompt
- find goals
- 5 minutes writing thesis, planning, etc.
- 30 minutes write essay
Citing Works
- Long works: underline/italics
- Short works: quotations
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)