The author of this editorial uses a lot of details such as, "Scotland Yard recently turned down a request to release the thick Victorian ledgers that contain the police reports, tips, clues and maybe a theory or two about Jack the Ripper." In this sentence we see the beginning evidence that the author believes that Scotland Yard should release the case file to the public. We see this in how he describes the ledgers, and what the ledgers contain. If he didn't think that Scotland Yard should share the information he would have belittled the ledgers, saying that there isn't anything of importance in there anyway, but instead he constantly reminds us of the sheer volume of information hidden away.
The author uses his language to produce a put-off child-like tone. For instance, he ended a sentence with, "or could he — gasp! — have been a royal?" That's not how you write a formal essay, with interjections like 'gasp', that's how teenagers speak. He also wrote, "That doesn't sit well with Ripperologists. Or with some real experts on state secrets." It sounds like when a kid has a dentist for his mother and she told him that, contrary to what he heard from his best friend Roger, sugar is actually bad for his teeth. The above sentence is when the child is stomping off saying "Fine, I'll go ask a real dentist." All in all the author just sounds insolent and like he's throwing a temper tantrum about the whole thing.
The syntax enforces the angry, childish tone of the author. He uses short sentences that run into each other like they should have been separated by commas, but were instead forced apart by the child having to calm down so as to think comprehensively. Also, by interjecting the "gasp!" in the earlier sentence the author also interjects a sarcastic tone. Less child like, but still immature. He reinforces the sarcastically immature tone with the sentence, "And he says he's oh, so close to proving it." The author's syntax is simple, only deviating to seem more sarcastic or childish.
The author wishes that Scotland Yard had revealed what they knew about the Jack the Ripper case, and is using this editorial as his temper tantrum. This is the way he shows them what he wants, but like any child, this tantrum won't get him what he wants.
This was a really interesting piece to read. I think your post could be improved by offering more direct examples of how the author uses details in the article, because I think in that paragraph you only used one example. The other two paragraphs are very strong and you use a lot of good examples. I think you did an especially good job discussing syntax and its effect on the article. After reading it, I'm not sure if the author is exactly throwing a temper tantrum, or is just frustrated by what he sees is unfair. But, good analysis!
ReplyDeleteI like your commentary! Very entertaining. :)
ReplyDeleteYou clearly have a good understanding of details, syntax and language. Your examples validated your points, which is awesome. Good job!
I have noticed a trend in your close readings and their comparison to the open prompts; you seem to have a more literary technique based structure for the close readings, but do not mention them explicitly in the open prompts. While it is possible to identify literary techniques and discuss their effects/meanings without explicity stating what technique is in use, the AP examiners wish to see what literary technique you are referencing exactly in order to prove you know what you are referencing; so if it has been your intention to use them invisibly, you may wish to make their presence more obvious in your open prompts.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I think this close reading is similarly high quality when compared to the last. I would recommend integrating the techniques+quotes+meaning discussions in future open prompts.