This is the next article you'll be using to practice language analysis.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/assange-tirade-a-tired-distraction-from-wikileaks-work-20110227-1b9w7.html
Write a practice SAC referring to the guiding notes in the previous posts over the long weekend and bring it to the next class on Tuesday when we'll be working through it and looking at another article too.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
SAC Advice...
Yo.
Below is the podcast from the opening summary of this morning's lesson. It goes for about 5 minutes and just covers the basics DOs and DON'Ts of what you should and shouldn't do in your second SAC on Monday.
Hope it helps. Good luck!
Hally
Language Analysis SAC Advice Podcast
Below is the podcast from the opening summary of this morning's lesson. It goes for about 5 minutes and just covers the basics DOs and DON'Ts of what you should and shouldn't do in your second SAC on Monday.
Hope it helps. Good luck!
Hally
Language Analysis SAC Advice Podcast
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
First SAC recap...
OK, so I wrote this for somebody who was away yesterday, but thought it might be useful for all of you, so here it is...
People who get Cs kind of get the same advice as those who get Ds. You need to provide more evidence and analysis of WHY the author is using the technique they are using and WHAT EFFECT this is intended to have on the audience.
The example I gave the class this morning was as follows; an average response might have said something like:
The author uses a metaphoric comparison between the government and the human brain, comparing the government to "neurons firing in the brain". This is clearly meant to make the audience see that the author thinks that the government is like a brain and stealing secrets from the government is like stealing people's private thoughts.
Now, the above example has some okay stuff in it. It recognises a technique and shows that the essay writer has a basic understanding of what's happening in the article, but by just saying what the brain comparison is showing is what the writer thinks is not enough to do really well, because it's still largely just comprehension. A good/better response might add the following sentences:
In addition to this, it could be interpreted that the brain is the most important part of the human body. It's the one thing that every other part of the body relies on to function smoothly and effectively. If a brain is damaged, other parts of the body will stop functioning correctly. By comparing the brain to the government, the author is suggesting to the reader that if the government is damaged, it will stop functioning effectively. If a government stops functioning effectively, the rest of society and us, as citizens, will be adversely affected. It is clear then, that the author feels that WikiLeaks releasing information could cause damage to governments, that doing so is "dangerous thinking" and is something that the audience should be extremely concerned about.
Now, the above section is a bit clunky and could be re-worded to read a little better, but the extra analysis is what makes for a stronger piece, because it shows analysis. It shows extra interpretation. It shows that you, as a writer, have stopped and asked yourself that question WHY and then analysed what the intended effect of doing that was.
So, if you re-wrote the above two snippets to be a bit better, cut out a few bits, cos it's probably a bit long, combine that with the improved paragraph I wrote on the board on Friday, you've got two body paragraphs that will be a much stronger piece. The challenge for you now, is to write that third paragraph. Remember, even if you write about tone, tone is still a technique, so discuss and analyse WHY the author has used a particular tone. What is he trying to achieve through that tone?
What I also told people this morning was to be more simplistic in their identification of tone. Remember that tone is HOW it's said, not what's being said. If I asked you to get up and speak in an aggressive tone, you would have an understanding of HOW to speak. Somebody wrote in their SAC that the author wrote in a "metaphoric" tone. What is a metaphoric tone? It doesn't exist. Somebody can write metaphorically and write using metaphors, but this isn't the tone, this isn't HOW they're writing. Yes, the author uses metaphors, but this doesn't make the tone metaphoric. If I asked you to speak to the class with a metaphoric tone, HOW would you speak? It's a difficult task because it doesn't really make sense. If I asked you to speak metaphorically in an aggressive tone, you'd have a clearer idea of what I was asking of you.
The other example I used this morning, was that somebody said he wrote with an "alarmist" tone. Again, I don't really think this makes sense. Yes, he is clearly trying to cause alarm to his audience, but this isn't the tone, this isn't the WAY he's communicating. It's just an intended effect.
Be more precise, clearer and straight forward with your choice of words when describing tone and ask yourself the question, "If I asked somebody to speak to me with an "insert word" tone, would they know what that meant and how to speak?" If it's a bit iffy, then choose a better word.
People who get Cs kind of get the same advice as those who get Ds. You need to provide more evidence and analysis of WHY the author is using the technique they are using and WHAT EFFECT this is intended to have on the audience.
The example I gave the class this morning was as follows; an average response might have said something like:
The author uses a metaphoric comparison between the government and the human brain, comparing the government to "neurons firing in the brain". This is clearly meant to make the audience see that the author thinks that the government is like a brain and stealing secrets from the government is like stealing people's private thoughts.
Now, the above example has some okay stuff in it. It recognises a technique and shows that the essay writer has a basic understanding of what's happening in the article, but by just saying what the brain comparison is showing is what the writer thinks is not enough to do really well, because it's still largely just comprehension. A good/better response might add the following sentences:
In addition to this, it could be interpreted that the brain is the most important part of the human body. It's the one thing that every other part of the body relies on to function smoothly and effectively. If a brain is damaged, other parts of the body will stop functioning correctly. By comparing the brain to the government, the author is suggesting to the reader that if the government is damaged, it will stop functioning effectively. If a government stops functioning effectively, the rest of society and us, as citizens, will be adversely affected. It is clear then, that the author feels that WikiLeaks releasing information could cause damage to governments, that doing so is "dangerous thinking" and is something that the audience should be extremely concerned about.
Now, the above section is a bit clunky and could be re-worded to read a little better, but the extra analysis is what makes for a stronger piece, because it shows analysis. It shows extra interpretation. It shows that you, as a writer, have stopped and asked yourself that question WHY and then analysed what the intended effect of doing that was.
So, if you re-wrote the above two snippets to be a bit better, cut out a few bits, cos it's probably a bit long, combine that with the improved paragraph I wrote on the board on Friday, you've got two body paragraphs that will be a much stronger piece. The challenge for you now, is to write that third paragraph. Remember, even if you write about tone, tone is still a technique, so discuss and analyse WHY the author has used a particular tone. What is he trying to achieve through that tone?
What I also told people this morning was to be more simplistic in their identification of tone. Remember that tone is HOW it's said, not what's being said. If I asked you to get up and speak in an aggressive tone, you would have an understanding of HOW to speak. Somebody wrote in their SAC that the author wrote in a "metaphoric" tone. What is a metaphoric tone? It doesn't exist. Somebody can write metaphorically and write using metaphors, but this isn't the tone, this isn't HOW they're writing. Yes, the author uses metaphors, but this doesn't make the tone metaphoric. If I asked you to speak to the class with a metaphoric tone, HOW would you speak? It's a difficult task because it doesn't really make sense. If I asked you to speak metaphorically in an aggressive tone, you'd have a clearer idea of what I was asking of you.
The other example I used this morning, was that somebody said he wrote with an "alarmist" tone. Again, I don't really think this makes sense. Yes, he is clearly trying to cause alarm to his audience, but this isn't the tone, this isn't the WAY he's communicating. It's just an intended effect.
Be more precise, clearer and straight forward with your choice of words when describing tone and ask yourself the question, "If I asked somebody to speak to me with an "insert word" tone, would they know what that meant and how to speak?" If it's a bit iffy, then choose a better word.
Your fourth short story...
This week's (a little bit late) story is another doozy from the Israeli writer, Etgar Keret. A different slant this week though, as it's actually an audio file. It's an mp3 version of a public reading the actor Robert Sean Leonard did of the story "Pride and Joy". If the name sounds familiar, it's probably because Robert Sean Leonard plays Wilson on the TV show "House". He was also one of the leads in the classic film "Dead Poet's Society" and if you haven't seen it, get it immediately and watch it. It's a cracker.
Anyhoo, enjoy this week's story.
Pride and Joy by Etgar Keret (as read by Robert Sean Leonard).
Anyhoo, enjoy this week's story.
Pride and Joy by Etgar Keret (as read by Robert Sean Leonard).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)