I chose to analyze an article from Rolling Stone called "The Truth About the Tea Party" which can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928
The article i chose is full of all sorts of imagery, details and language. From the first scentence, the author draws us a very vivid picture of what they see on their journey to a tea party rally in the heart of Kentucky.
My favorite example of imagery from the article is this bit right here: "seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters". I think the imagery in this bit is brilliant, it paints a perfect picture of what the author is seeing but also uses the imagery to show his flagrant bias against the tea party. He uses the visual aid to show us in the most negative way what he sees when he looks at the people around him which he uses to invoke similar feelings into his readership.
The details that the author uses throughout the article are another superb touch. The most recurring and well used of these details is regarding the demographic of the crowd; elderly and white. his use of details, particularly in this line, "Palin chortles, to best applause her aging crowd can muster.", shows the demographic of the crowd very well. In my mind, it generates the thought of a bunch of decrepit, senile, white people who will be dead before they get a chance to vote anyway. Does it matter that they are that old, no, but it helps to conjure an exaggerated image of the demographic of the tea party and what it stands for.
The author uses a very unique language in his article. What makes it unique is the use of curse words. His use is not liberal and not used against anyone, but is effective in that it shows his appalled reaction to the argument used by the tea party advocates. The author is by no means vulgar, he simply uses curse words as a tool to bolster the strength of his phrases. When he says "Stay in what truck?", in reaction to one of Palin's comments, "What the hell does that even mean?", it shows that he isn't just skeptical of Palin's comments, but he is upset by the lack of intelligence he sees in it. This use of language isn't necessary, but it adds oomph to his sentences and adds a little extra humor to an already fun piece.
This is well done. I like your examples of each of the literary techniques and the explanation that you give after each one. I only have two suggestions:
ReplyDelete1. Make sure to always connect your examples to a meaning. For diction you do this very well. You also do an excellent job of showing how techniques create effects. However, make sure to add in how those effects create a definite meaning as well.
2. You can always add more examples! It will make your point stronger.
Other than that, I thought it was a very good response.
This again is a good post. I really like the article you chose and your examples. It was entertaining and interesting. The only thing you could add would be maybe discuss tone it may make the post even more interesting.
ReplyDelete