http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-09-23/Boy-Scouts-perversion-files/57833710/1
Editorials are all about spreading an opinion through subtle but manipulating language. This editorial, written to scorn the Boy Scout programs in the US, does an excellent job of keeping the manipulation quiet but effective. The article alone easily brings out negative reactions in the reader; few approve of sexual predators taking advantage of young boys. The writer further exaggerates this with clever use of diction, detail and syntax.
The author is clearly writing to project a negative opinion, and his word choice ties in wonderfully. Even the title of his article is clever; the scouts have not just done badly, they've "failed". This word instantly reminds people not of a small mistake or wrongdoing but of utter defeat of the highest sort, and often because of a lack of effort. He goes on to strongly claim that, "The Scouts' failure meant predators were free to stalk and abuse more innocent children, and some did." Failure, predators, stalk, abuse, innocent- all strong descriptions that, in a typical newspaper article, would be avoided in favor of less harsh words. However, he also does a good job of hiding his strong opinions, keeping out overly harsh or personal attacks that would detract from the validity of his opinion.
The detail used is limited but effective. It's worth noting that the article isn't packed with numbers and dates; rather, the author gets at the general ideas, as if trying to point out that it's not just the specific cases but the entire establishment that has a problem. However, he's not afraid to point out specific facts that he finds appalling; when pointing out that sex offender scoutmasters were allowed to simply resign, he gave the example of a scoutmaster that "In 1976, after five Scouts accused [him] of two rapes and other sex crimes, was allowed to resign." This select detail brings out the worst in the Scouts.
The sentence structure, like the diction and detail, try to press the idea that he is writing a news article instead of a personal opinion while still pushing his ideals. He uses nearly only lengthy sentences, with little variation, a rather dry and stuffy style that would be expected in unbiased news articles. It's an attempt to sound formal that succeeds. It's only his use of strong diction and selective detail that bring out his opinion, letting the syntax keep the article sounding official and reliable.
Though already assumed to have personal opinion included due to its status as an editorial, this article is expertly written to manipulate the reader while keeping their trust.
Hey Madaleine! :) There are few things I have to say about your essay.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I really like how you point out the tone of the article directly in the beginning of the paragraph. It makes the readers feel the atmosphere that author tries to create and that is pretty important when writing an analysis.
Second, all of your claims are well-supported by the textual evidence you provided. The great thing is that you not only provide the evidence, you also contribute your own opinions, which makes the analysis so unique.
Third, all of your textual evidences are strong and correctly cited. :) Good job!
Great introductory paragraph – although I can think of a few editorials that aren’t quite as subtle as they could be.
ReplyDeleteYou have several clear examples of how the author's diction projects a negative opinion, although you might want to throw in some vocabulary words like “pejorative” and “connotation”.
When discussing detail, most people try to show how the many details an author uses emphasize his point. But as you say in your introduction, editorials are about subtlety, and you managed to look at both sides – how an overall lack of detail portrays the BSA negatively in general rather than in certain cases, but also how including those certain cases highlights the worst of the Scouts.
You say that the structure helps to convince the reader that the author and article are trustworthy, just as the diction and details do, but you didn’t mention previously that the details serve that function. You actually contrasted the diction used to that of a news article at the start of the second paragraph and do so again at the end of the fourth. I’d remove the claim that the diction and details help the author seem more reliable, since there are inconsistencies with other claims.
I also disagree with the claim that the sentences don’t vary in length. There are plenty of sentences spanning several lines, as you said, but I also found one just three words long: “And that's true.” Some other sentences are not much longer: “That was woefully inadequate. The laws vary widely.” Your opinion of the overall variation in sentence length may vary, of course, but you might want to consider choosing another aspect of syntax that you can support with specific evidence or maybe another element of DIDLS.
I think your conclusion could reiterate more strongly how the author uses techniques to create effects and meanings. Right now, it focuses on the contrast between the (lack of) reliability one would expect from an editorial and how trustworthy it actually seems. This is an effect, but no techniques are mentioned in the conclusion.
Thank you very, very much for this monster of a critique. All quite helpful information that I will (try to, probably unsuccessfully for the most part) apply. I'm not accustomed to getting actually useful and thoughtful responses to these silly assignments. xD
DeleteI'm sorry that you find my assignments to be silly, Madaleine. You must resent having so much of your time wasted. I'm sure that your judgment about what is a valuable exercise for a young writer and thinker is probably superior to the judgment of someone who has been teaching writing for more years than you have been alive.
DeleteI'm also sorry that you find almost all of your peers' responses to be useless to you. I am sure that they will all strive to be more helpful to you in future, considering that they have taken the time to read your work carefully and respond--publicly--as thoughtfully as they can only to receive--publicly--such an unkind remark from you.
Madeline, I think you did a very good job with this analysis. I like when you mentioned how the diction really made an emphasis. When I hear a word like "failed" does have a bigger impact on me because it reminds me of a big mistake rather than a small wrongdoing. I think its funny that you mentioned that with the use of syntax the author convinces you that even they he is obviously pushing an opinion your still just reading a news article and not a persuasive piece which you might read differently. I don't think that theres anything I would really change
ReplyDelete