Excellent posts last week. Loved the words you found in your pieces.
This week try to focus on how the writer involves the reader. Good narrative pieces (this is not to say all of your readings are narrative pieces) engage the reader on some level. How do your writers do it?
17 comments:
"To be free to sleep wherever you choose and with whomever you choose is to be free to turn up your nose at the 'Ladies' Course' and to pursue instead a 'classical' curriculum"
Flanagan's use of "you" in this sentence did not seem improper to me, but instead I felt more like a part of the story. Much of the essay almost resembles a thesis and the author uses "one" later on, but it was this sentence that made me put myself if that situation. I didn't notice this usage at first, but upon reading it again, it made the essay feel less formal and made me more connected and invested in the essay.
"I don't interpret Obama's refusal to engage as a sign of passivity. In fact, after half a century of talking about race until we're blue in the face (so to speak), the president's silence is one of many signs that he is showing us a new, post-civil-rights, post-affirmative-action way to deal with America's racial divide."
By writing in first person and using the pronoun "we," Rodriguez makes it seem as if the reader is part of the people in the story. This makes the reader more concerned about what happens in the essay, as the story is about "us" and not "they."
"Push for the car, then withdraw to your original project (What is it? A dungeon? A miniature helipad? The mind boggles), ruefully saying that the sports car is just too pricey."
Clever and fun. I like the use of the parentheses and the overall personality and randomness. I also like the word "ruefully." Good Stuff!
In both of his articles this week Mark Morford involved the reader by using "you" and "we." Although many english teachers would shun him for these pronoun, they help the reader connect and relate to the article. One example of this is at the end of his article titled HOW TO TALK TO COMPLETE IDIOTS. THREE BASIC OPTIONS. CHOOSE WISELY, LEST YOU GO TOTALLY INSANE, Morford writes “Do it for the children, won't you?” This is very conversational and therefore easy to relate to.
"If the uninsured can't count on the do-gooders to help them, where else can they turn?"
This is as close as Dionne got to personal in his writing this week. By using the phrase "where else can they turn," he makes us sympathetic towards the uninsured and has us hoping for a solution that gets them coverage. He starts the article with this sentence, which really does draw you in, and then goes on to explain how exactly the political finagling is going. I wish he had spent more time on the personalization of the issue: I feel that that would have been more effective.
From Dionne's article "Uncharitable Charities."
Peggy Noonan is still AWOL, the most recent article she has written was from September 12, so I am still milking that one.
"They were at school. Suddenly there were rumors in the hall and teachers speaking in hushed tones. You passed an open classroom and saw a teacher sobbing. Then the principal came on the public-address system and said something very bad had happened. Shocked parents began to pick kids up. Everyone went home and watched TV all day, and the next."
The use of a story drew me into this moment of the article. She described something tangible, something we can distinctly follow, and that one distinct use of the second person put me smack-dab in the middle of it.
Daum asks the reader a lot of questions in her article. This one in particular is directed towards being relatable:
"Is there anything more engaging than being told about the moral decay of society, especially when you can easily point to ways in which you are the exception to the shenanigans?"
So true, and forces you to say Yes.
"If they once judged themselves on looks, kids, hubbies, gardens and dinner parties, now they judge themselves on looks, kids, hubbies, gardens, dinner parties — and grad school, work, office deadlines and meshing a two-career marriage."
I think that this involves the reader (especially women) because it is a statement that many women can probably relate too. Dowd contrasted the roles of women 30+ years ago with the role of women today. Perhaps some women will read this and remember the role that their mother played in their household when they were growing up with the role that they play in their own household now.
Michelle Kuo takes on a sort of familiarity with the reader by using phrases like "sort of student," which assumes the reader and the author can come to the same conclusion about something through basic human commonalities.
She also includes small details to keep the reader in the moment, and writes very obviously in the first person. Her use of "I" makes it almost as if she is talking to you, telling a story, rather than writing an essay to be read later.
In the first few years, a man will want to have sex with his wife to make babies. Afterward, his wife will no longer interest him. That is all.
This quote brought me in as a reader because it elicited an extreme reaction in me. At this moment I felt myself enraged with the blanket statement the author's father was making about women's role in society based solely on his own opinions. Until this moment I didn't feel particularly engaged in the narrative but in this moment I felt myself become a silent participant in this debate.
Barbara Brotman uses the 2nd person voice "You" to engage the reader. In the article I read this week "During Yom Kippur, a deeper appreciation for religious holidays" , Brotman wrote as if she were having a conversation with the reader, asking questions for the reader to answer like, "Do you prefer singing parodies of popular music and Broadway show tunes?" or "Did I mention that you're supposed to drink four glasses of wine? Each?"
I think this form of writing is VERY effective because I found the article so interesting. Some of her other pieces I find to be a bit dry, but this article was by far my favorite and the topic was Yom Kippur.
The article is very conversational and easy to relate to. As I read the article, I felt like I was having a one-on-one meeting with Brotman. My favorite line is at the end when she really sounds as if she is closing a spoken conversation, including both herself and the reader as if her and the reader were old friends: "We should visit each other more often."
"So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents?"
I love it when writers involve the reader by questions. This is one of my favorite elements about Paul Krugman's writing; he does it all the time. It makes it seem as more a conversational piece, as if I am bringing the article to life because I am answering the questions in my head, as he intends.
What I particularly loved about the questions above is that he began his article with those questions. They instantly got me thinking in the first two lines of the article.
"What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of invention. And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out."
Friedman at first uses the pronoun "we," making the reader feel included in the article. By the end of this section, however, in the phrase "watch out," he warns the reader as if he were talking to a close friend (I forget the actual grammatical term for the type of subject here...it's something along the lines of an "un-named" or "un-official you"). This inconsistency in how Friedman speaks to the reader makes the article feel more informal and natural, rather than super polished and hard to relate to. Also, in the article, "It is the mother of invention" was italicized, which caught my eye.
I am a day late. Sorry team. But here goes.
"One idea is electronic signs that boot out solo-driven hybrids from the express lanes when there is too much traffic."
This sentence involves the reader because it uses strong language to evoke emotion in the reader. The words "boot out" show the reader that this is a serious issue and that it will happen to them. Being booted out is never a good thing, so this article almost threatens the reader.
Sorry Mary I forgot to post yesterday!
"You should work with them to solve problems, he says, rather than doing things — such as time outs and loss of privileges — to them."
I like that the author uses the words "you" and "them"; while I was reading this I felt instantly involved in what she was saying since she was directly addressing me. It seemed like the author was almost directing me--giving me instructions in how to handle this situation--making me feel engaged in her writing.
"Now, this could be because of changing circumstances and a new set of problems that puts you back at square one—shit does happen. Or because you’ve just been faking it."
The use of you makes the story seem more personal. Also the use of the phrase "shit does happen" makes the piece more informal and reflects the way people actually talk. The way Wolfe separates the last phrase to make its own sentence draws the reader in as well, because by separating it, the significance is enhanced. it adds drama to the sentence
Post a Comment