Clearly, there is a major debate going on about who is going to be the better President for our country for the next 4 years. The editorial titled, "Twisting the Facts about Health Care, discusses Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's plan for United States health care. This is an important issue because the health of the citizens of our country depends on the governmental plans made to assist us. It seems that this article is based upon supporting Obama and questioning Romney's ideas.
The author is definitely taking the "Obamacare" side. He states that Mr. Romney plans to replace Obama's plan, but he never specified "what he would replace it with". The context of such a statement means that the author is persuading the audience in a certain direction; this is the use of syntax. The writing makes Romney's actions seen unclear and unimportant, and therefore, they will be unsuccessful.
According to the article, "Mr. Romney never quite answered and made some egregious misstatements along the way", and the diction used in this statement is significant because it creates better meaning to the article. It is implying that Romney does not know what he is really supporting, in the author's opinion. Diction is important during debates because it provides specific ideas that the politicians are supporting.
This article uses imagery by using a lack of imagery. Because the author is so against Romney, he has provided little detail about Romney's plans; therefore, making it impossible to imagine what Romney is trying to do for our country. The author claims that Romney laid out "a lengthy description" of his plan, but apparently, it is just a bunch of irrelevant detail that avoids answering the most important question, "who will be paying?" The lack of imagery physically displays the author's opinion of Romney's ideas because no one can actually put a picture to the plan.
The use of syntax, diction, and imagery (or lack thereof) is important while creating an article that has a strong voice. The author is highly opinionated and he needed to provide these techniques to make a successful article.
www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/the-republican-ticket-twists-the-facts-about-health-care.html?src=me&ref=general
Hmm… I think you’re misunderstanding syntax, diction, and imagery Morgan. First off, syntax is sentence structure. The fact that the author never specified “’what he would replace it with’” is irrelevant. Did the author use short, choppy sentences? Or longer ones? If so, what does that mean for the work as a whole? You’re closer with diction and imagery. With diction, try pointing out single words or phrases that the author associates with Romney, and how that creates meaning. Finally, imagery is vivid language associated with the senses. You wrote the author “provided little detail about Romney’s plan,” so maybe your final point should be about details instead?
ReplyDeleteMorgan, I too chose a political article for this topic. It's not hard to find strong opinion and bias in those! I like the article you chose because it definitely leans to one side and makes very clear how they feel about the candidates. I agree with Morgan that instead of imagery you should have talked about detail. The author provides little detail about what Romney is actually trying to do. Also as Haley pointed out your use of syntax was incorrect so that is something I would change. For diction you didn't really point out a specific word or phrase that stood out to you and how it was relevant. Which would have made this blog better! Other than that you did a very good job!
ReplyDelete* I agree with Haley
ReplyDeleteI think you chose well when selecting a political opinion article for the "strong voice" prompt. Political opinions are usually strongly debated, and are in no shortage with the upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit confused by the imagery paragraph. I took away that the article didn't clearly explain Romney's political goals, and that it made it hard for the reader to imagine what they were, but I don't think this would fall under imagery. If you choose to follow this train of thought I'd suggest adding more details, or clarifying how this shows imagery. However, I have to agree with Haley. I think this would work well under "details".
I would add more detail/explanation to the "diction" paragraph. Although it outlines your train of thought I think it could be more developed, which would add depth to your essay.
Overall I think you had an excellent use of helping the reader through your thought process. I could really see where you were going with your different points!
In September, your peer reviewers suggested that you needed to have a clearer thesis so that readers could follow your argument through your essay. You did a good job responding to this advice and creating a clear thesis this month. For next month, try to offer your reader a specific theory about the tone--it's "bitter," it's "nostalgic," it's "enthusiastic," etc.
ReplyDeleteYour peer reviewers this month have also offered some great advice for things to work on for your next Close Reading, so I won't duplicate their comments here. I do want to urge you to be more analytical in your own peer reviews, though. I notice that you often simply affirm what you liked about your peers' work--and while it's always nice to hear what someone else liked about your work, this doesn't help your peers improve their work. Remember that it's a sign of real respect to say, peer to peer, "This isn't right--here's how to fix it." When you just let mistakes go, it's actually kind of condescending, even though you don't mean it to be. =)