An article in the Arizona Republic entitled "Don't undermine endangered species" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/12/10/20101210fri2-10.html), is very informative. It's about Congress trying to exclude gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and what would happen if they should succeed. The author writes in a passionate way, truly telling us what they think about the whole idea.
The author uses very interesting word choice. Their use of diction casts the article in scientific yet frustrated light. The author uses more advanced language which gives the article a more serious feel. Words such as "robust", "arbitrarily", "omnibus", and "undermine" are not often used in everyday conversation, but the author uses them repeatedly, which suggests that they want the reader to take it seriously. They want it to be known that it is no laughing matter.
Though wolves being excluded from the endangered species list truly is no laughing matter, the author uses imagery that lightens the mood a little. The first sentence, "Congress may fire a shot in the dark that hits endangered gray wolves." sets a lighter tone we get images of a man in his best suit and tie clumsily handling a gun. The image, besides lightening the mood, is the author's way of telling us that Congress has no idea what they're doing. It shows us that the author believes that Congress should get some lessons about wolves before deciding what to do. Later the author says, "President Obama wants to throw wolves under the bus.", now obviously that isn't meant to be taken literally, but it still conjures up an image of the President in his typical suit throwing a wolf in front of a bus as it come charging down a road. The image suggests that the President isn't taking time to think about what he's doing, he's just taking the shortest path.
All in all, the author uses language that begs for an educated audience, so that hopefully someone will take action. If the author had written in a less educated way, fewer people would have paid attention to what they had written, and fewer people would take action. The author could have used words such as "large" instead of "robust" and played to a greater audience, but instead showed that they were aiming for both quality and quantity.
The author uses diction, imagery, and language to show their point, and try to influence others to help their cause. I think it works extraordinarily well, in terms of showing their point, for it came through crystal clear. I only hope that it influenced enough people to help stand up for the wolves.
I definitely agree about the "scientific yet frustrated" tone the author adopts. I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on the idioms being used to lighten the mood: To me, throwing things at busses and shooting wolves are not laughing matters. It does, though, as you said, cast opposition in a harsh light. Overall you did a good job of isolating the techniques that really make a reader listen and care.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this is a great close reading, especially for the first one! That being said, the essay does not seem to have very much "flow." In other words, it is kind of choppy to read. You use good quotes from the article as evidence. As Evan said before, you do a really good job analyzing specific parts of the article. Good job!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the throwing the wolves under the bus part is rather humorous, but I feel like the shot in the dark phrase doesn't really lighten the mood much. I do agree with your idea about the word choice, but really, isn't everyone writing that way if they're writing to impress? Good job quoting and referencing specific parts of the article, I thought this was a thorough and well done essay.
ReplyDelete