Nowadays,
everything is political, even death. The author of this article, Amanda
Marcotte, writes about Rick Santorum’s response to Nelson Mandela’s death. She
uses diction, language, and detail to portray how ignorant she believes
Santorum is.
First,
Marcotte uses diction to portray her message. She uses very strong words to
paint Santorum in an adverse light. She starts off the article saying that she
cannot believe how “ignorant” Santorum is and that he “hijacked” Mandela’s
spotlight when Santorum appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show to speak about him.
Both “ignorant” and “hijacked” have very negative meanings and connotations.
She continues her article by saying that all Santorum wanted to do was
“exploit” Mandela’s death to “whine” about current social welfare programs.
“Exploit”, again, has a very negative connotation and the word “whine” almost
conjures the image of a little kid or a baby. All these words clearly show how
much disdain Marcotte has for Santorum.
Next, Marcotte utilizes language to
negatively depict Santorum. Marcotte says that many conservatives mourned
Mandela’s death despite their differences. She continues by saying that
“Santorum really outshone the competition” by choosing not to mourn over
Mandela and instead to use Mandela’s death as an opportunity to attack Obamacare.
Marcotte figuratively uses the word “outshone” to express how she believes that
Santorum was just trying to outclass than the rest of his party.
Finally, Marcotte uses detail to
convince the reader that Santorum really is ignorant. She does this in two
ways: by telling the reader about all the great things Mandela has done and by
telling the reader of all the terrible things Santorum has done. She writes
about how Mandela pushed for women’s reproductive rights and how he even made
sure that the government could pay for a woman’s abortion if she could not.
Marcotte is also sure to mention that Santorum is strongly against
reproductive/abortion rights. Marcotte then writes about how Mandela was in
favor of a national health care system and did his best to make sure all the
South African population could have good health coverage. She contrasts this to
Santorum, who is against Obamacare and believes that Mandela was communist for
his health care reform. Marcotte uses detail to convince the reader that
Mandela is all good and Santorum all bad.
Writing
about Mandela’s recent death, Marcotte composes this article to praise Mandela
and condemn Santorum. To relay her message, she uses detail, language, and
diction.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteTo start off, the introduction and conclusion you have here sound basic and typical, the conclusion more so. That shouldn’t be too much of a worry spot, however, since the focus should rest on the thesis and its support. Speaking of which, your second body paragraph has good, solid evidence and warrants. The first I feel has nice evidence but is lacking in how it justifies this evidence, you even wind up using the same warrant twice. Saying “hijacked” has a negative connotation is too simple. Add something else like how did with “whine” by claiming it makes the reader the reader think of a crying baby.
Finally, there should be different sets of evidence for your third body paragraph about details. The issue of abortion rights is a controversial topic, and Marcotte saying that Santorum is against these rights would not be considered as a negative aspect to every reader. Some may actually be against Mandela in this case if they believe that no life should ever be taken, even from the unborn.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteOverall I think that you did a very good job in structuring this close reading. I felt that you had a firm grasp on supporting your introductory thesis with the body paragraphs by using evidence and warrants. You also wrap everything up full circle with your conclusion so I agree with Blake on the structure not being "...too much of a worry spot..." I also agree with him in that you should spring out a little from the "too simple." I have no other issues with this post except for the fact that I don't hear as much of a distinct voice from you as I would like to. But then again...I can't say that I know you..BUT STILL. Let the less unfortunate get to know YOU. I'm not saying that your personal opinions have to ooze between indentations, because this is not necessarily the right post for that, but I do think that you can squeeze yourself through.
.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a really good job. I often struggle with these posts for some reasons, I think articles can be hard to find three because evidence ends up overlapping and things. That said I do agree with Blake that in the third paragraph the topic of abortion is a touchy one, however you were just stating the authors opinion so I think it was valid to use to defend your thesis. Your introduction was good, the conclusion could use a little bit of attention but its not the focus of the post. I liked how you explained diction, I thought it was well done and that your words flowed between claims, evidence, and warrants very well. The warrants in the first paragraph could be explained some more so that the reader can really get the full affect of what the author was trying to say and also what your are trying to point out. The language paragraph is a bit weak. When you say "Marcotte figuratively uses the word 'outshone' to express how she believes that Santorum was just trying to outclass than the rest of his party." that seems more like something that would be backing up diction instead of language, just try to find some more clear evidence for language. Overall well done, you had some really good points and it was written very clearly.