Sunday, December 16, 2012

Close Read #4


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Death in Connecticut is a response to the recent tragedy of the murder of 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.  The author conveys a critical tone of the U.S. government through extensive use of diction, detail, and syntax.  These techniques convince the reader to side with the author's opinion and believe action must be taken about gun control in the United States.

Most of the diction used in the editorial is deliberately selected to have weight and bite behind it.  In the third paragraph, the author writes "those who agonized for hours."  Instead of using a word like "waited", the author uses the word "agonized" which delivers a blow to the reader that makes him/her imagine the extreme suffering of those involved.  Later in the editorial (paragraph 6), the author utilizes the word "sensible" in referring to any ideas that could control dangerous gun use, that Democrats will not support.  The word "sensible" makes the reader think the Democrats are insensible for not supporting anything, thus influencing the reader into being critical of them.  The author also influences the reader into being critical of the Republicans as well, saying they are "mired in an ideology that opposes any gun control."  The word "mired" makes the reader believe the Republicans are unwavering and stuck in a senseless viewpoint that will not fix the gun problem.

Detail is used in the editorial to remind the reader that this is not the first tragedy to strike the nation as the author includes specific information.  In the second to last paragraph, the author reminds the reader of similar tragedies, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Aurora that have happened in the past twenty years.  This deliberate reminder is so that the reader will think that action must be taken against the gun problem in the United States because it has happened so frequently.  Furthermore, in the 5th paragraph it is mentioned that the assault weapons ban under Clinton has expired so the reader will realize there is nothing that is combating dangerous gun use in the United States.  With this knowledge in mind, the reader further feels the need that the government must do something.

The syntax in the editorial is carefully used to elicit an emotional response.  In the second paragraph, it says, " But what actually matters are the children. What are their names? What did they dream of becoming?"  As soon as the reader fully digests those questions, he/she will immediately feel sorrow.  The author asks questions that makes the reader realize that a human life, full of potential, was lost and a name behind the person adds even more emotional weight.  This emotional response is used to heighten a sense of anger that is felt towards those responsible, whom the author says is the U.S. government.  In the next paragraph, the author uses hyphens to add extra information that will, again, elicit an emotional response.  Specifically, it says, "Our hearts are broken for those parents who found out their children — little more than babies, really — were wounded or killed."  The extra information, that the kids were "little more than babies", is to make the reader feel worse knowing how young those murdered were.

Syntax, diction, and detail are used in Death in Connecticut to convey the author's critical tone of the United States government and to get the reader to side with him/her.  The diction connects the reader to the victims of the tragedy and also influences them to be critical of a passive government.  Emotional responses are instigated through rhetorical questions and added information and the details the author presents makes the reader feel the need to take action.  Overall, the three techniques create a highly emotional and compelling read that achieves the author's goal of conveying his/her viewpoints and influencing a reader to side with him/her.

In the wake of this horrible tragedy, it should be obvious to everyone that changes must be made regardless of the rhetorical devices used in this editorial.  My thoughts and prayers go out to you, Newtown.

3 comments:

  1. Hi Santos,
    Your essay uses lots of details from throughout the article to support your thesis. I appreciate that you state where in the article you found your quotes. Your paragraph that talks about the syntax in the article seemed to talk more about the details rather than syntax of the article. I would suggest talking about the significance of the ordering of the emotional words, rather than the significance of the words themselves. Your conclusion is also very strong. Nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really like how you focused on the "critical tone" instead of the piece as a whole. By dialing in on one aspect it allows you to get much more specific. My only critique is that you did not go back to the "critical tone" and mention it enough in the following paragraphs. It was hidden underneath your other very good points but if that is the main point you may want it to jump off the page a little more. You made very good points and supported your argument with worth while evidence. Your final, final paragraph also adds a very nice personal touch. Overall, really nice job!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You use a lot of examples, and you explain what they do within their context very thoroughly, but you need to use the combined forces of the evidence to support the claim of each paragraph. By that, I mean you need to tie the evidence more tightly to the claim. You kinda go off on tangents, especially in the diction paragraph, for every piece of evidence before coming back to the point.
    And as Joyce said, be careful with your syntax warrants. You definitely found evidence of syntax, but you need to explain how, for example, the *separation* of the detail with hyphens (not the detail itself) affects the reader.

    Noah Symanzik

    ReplyDelete