Excellent posts last week. Great job commenting on your writer.
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:
"Some words carry flavor. Speak aloud the familiar syllables of coffee, chocolate or toast, and the brain fires memories of taste. Flash: a steaming cup of Sumatra, soft and gently acidic washes over your tongue. Your first taste of waxy chocolate Easter bunny as it melted in your mouth. Fresh baked bread, made golden from the heat of a toaster, on a cold winter day."
Firstly, the author addresses the reader as "you", when she writes, "your first taste of...". This gives the article a more personal feel and makes the reader feel as if they're the only audience. In this paragraph, the author also directs the reader to "speak aloud the familiar syllables of coffee, chocolate or toast...", encouraging her audience to pronounce words out loud, therefore involving the reader and capturing their interest.
Collins does an excellent job of grabbing the reader by the collar and bringing them in to the writing. She is direct, focused, and appealing to a broad audience. She starts the article off with an immediate personal and inclusive hook: “Our question for today is: Why don’t the Republicans just throw in the towel? Really, this is not going well for anybody.” She immediately draws the reader in and makes them a part of the story with the use of “our” as the very first word of the article. In addition, as she is seen generally as a liberal, feminist opinion writer for the New York Times, she plays to her audience by picking a side and sticking with it. Those who support her will applaud her bravery in taking a stand, and those opposed will read on in outrage and disgust. No matter the stance, she will have them reading. Later in the article, she introduces a paragraph of background information with the sentence “Let’s review.” Once again, the reader is reminded that this is an article for us. Throughout the rest of the piece, she addresses the reader directly and forcefully, at one point even presenting the hypothetical situation for the reader: “if you were a fervent Tea Party follower, listening to this kind of talk over the last few years, you’d feel pretty confident that this showdown in Washington could only end one way, right?” Even though this direct address to the reader is dripping with sarcasm, it forges a strong connection between the reader and the piece, making them read, think, and take a side. Collins’ informal way of writing directly to her audience effectively captures the attention of the reader in a deliberate and focused way, making for an altogether more lively and dynamic piece in which the reader feels included and even relied on.
"My inbox flowed red this week after my column on the flap over the Washington Redskins name. You’d have thought I shot a boxful of kittens. Or saved a boxful. Some thought I should be fired. Some thought I should be elected. Some called me racist. Some thanked me for honoring a race."
In this segment from his entry on ESPN, Reilly creates a personal relationship with his readers by including their opinions and thoughts on an issue. In the last four sentences he includes what the readers thought about his latest work on the name of the National Football team the Washington Redskins. By including the feedback he got from his fans, it shows how he listens to what the readers have to say and acknowledges them for their contributions.
"As a nation, we are finding it increasingly impossible to answer a Yes or No question with a Yes or No. No one can bear it.
When I ask for a coffee in the mornings, the person behind the counter sometimes says, “No worries, not a problem, not a problem at all.”
What next?
“May I have a cappuccino?”
“You really mustn’t blame yourself.”"
The way that Boyt uses dialogue (and humor) instantly catches the reader because it stands out from her usual first person writing. By taking a brief pause from her voice, it also gives the reader another perspective of her view which can also be eye catching. Additionally, Boyt poses the question "What's next?" to the reader. By addressing us directly we are instantly drawn and do want to answer the question: what is next? By involving the reader in her quest for understanding, they are more likely to continuing reading because they feel like they are together with the author on the journey of discovery.
In the process, an entire language, designed for maximum compactness and efficiency, has evolved. Most of us know the more common phrases — "LOL" for "laughing out loud," for instance. But the lexicon runs deep. "LMKHTWOFY" means "Let me know how that works out for you." All these acronyms, not to mention the endless emoticons and other signs and symbols, like "*$" for Starbucks, could lead to some serious POAK ("passing out at keyboard") especially if you're a POTATO ("Person over thirty acting twenty-one.")
I really liked how Meghan Daum was really personable and casual in this paragraph. She touches on a common topic of how texting has become a new language. It is an actual reality, but not everyone may not realize it. I found these acronyms really funny and wonder how many people actually uses them. She also uses the word "us" which makes more relatable to her audience because she is including herself in the picture. I feel like capturing the audience through humor is a great way to engage the reader on a personal level.
Jennifer Chenery from Bake and Break does a great job of engaging her reader by writing in a personal and laid back format. She writes about a lot of personal experience and memories which makes the reader feel as though she is there with you telling them a story. She also uses ‘you’ often in her writing, making her experiences become yours as well. I really enjoy reading her posts because I share her passion for baking and it’s always fun to hear about her adventures.
"In the scheme of mythical hazards — that you should never swim immediately after eating, that touching a frog will give you warts, that you'll grow hair on your hands if you, well, you know — the idea that an iPod could bring down a plane has been singled out for particular scorn. For years, airline passengers have been stomping their feet like angry children: It's not true! The government is saying that to control us. It's a conspiracy on the part of SkyMall to tempt us into buying lawn statues."
Duam always does a good job of bringing her readers into her work. This is a snippet that shows her casual tone well. She is a joke-ster and always incorporates a relatable and humorous thread to her articles, making readers feel comfortable, and as if they're in the company of a close friend. Here she references both well known sayings and a well known magazine. She also addresses the reader as "you", which makes it conversational. And with "to tempt us," she sides herself with the reader against an evil, and that connects them even further. She's great at making herself feel like a hilarious witty friend.
"The Broncos could attain perfection this season, but would they be better off with imperfection?"
"What are the Broncos' chances to go undefeated this season?" etc.
There are a number of questions, some rhetorical, throughout Paige's article; In discussing the Broncos' chances of going unbeaten this season, he involves the readers through this technique. The questions raised when reading the article are directly attended to, typically right after they come to mind. In this sense, the reader feels like he or she is having a conversation with the author, having his or her opinions addressed. Paige connects with his audience in this regard as well because they can relate to the questions that he possess on their behalf. Overall, this semi-Q&A format, coupled with his informal tone, makes reading his article feel like any old chat with a friend about the Broncos chances of remaining undefeated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/dowd-thats-not-amore.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0
I tried so hard to find a part of this piece to quote, but if you were to click on the link and read the article, you would understand my dilemma. Dowd writes a fictional play by play of John Boehner's morning. In other words, a cry for an end to the politically motivated government shutdown. She uses quotes that Boehner did not actually say to describe his activities and they are hilarious. I am someone who is not that interested in all the politics in Washington so although I did not completely understand her references, her writing still drew me in and I found myself chuckling from sentence to sentence.
“It’s beginning to look as though we’re not going to get an immigration reform law this year.”
This is the opening line of David Brooks’ article “Pass the Bill!” and it immediately brings the reader into the piece. Brooks’ puts the himself and the reader on the same level and makes it more a conversation, rather than a lecture. He could have phrased it as “America is not going to get”, but that would have put him outside the realm of the average reader and left them feeling talked at. Also, his article takes a very balanced and scientific approach to the issue he is discussing, without engaging in Democratic and Republican rhetoric. This engages a larger percentage of his readers and does not make any feel alienated or maligned.
"Whether this bill passes or not, this country is heading toward a multiethnic future. Republicans can either shape that future in a conservative direction or, as I’ve tried to argue, they can become the receding roar of a white America that is never coming back."
This is the penultimate sentence of an article David Brooks wrote on Congresses struggle to pass an immigration reform law. Throughout the article, he pored over the specifics of the proposed bills and the dynamic between the Democratic Senate and Republican House, losing a little bit of touch with what this bill actually means for us as US citizens. He brought it back to reality quite nicely with this last sentence and showed the concrete meaning of this argument.
"It’s easier to be numbed by child prostitution abroad, but we came across online prostitution ads in Nashville... In this respect, Nashville is Everytown U.S.A. Sex trafficking is an American universal."
In this piece about prostitution, Kristof involves the reader in a really interesting way. While he doesn't normally write about topics like this (he is known more for political commentary), the way he draws the reader into the story is reminiscent of some of his other writing. Here, he talks about how trafficking and prostitution doesn't happen just in third-world countries thousands of miles away, but it is also prominent in American cities like Nashville. He then goes on to write that "Nashville is Everytown U.S.A." This makes the readers think about their own towns and question the frequency of crimes like these in their own backyards.
Mark Ogden's main element to engage the writer is through his titles and first paragraph. Ogden posts a good amount of articles, so for some people, there might not be enough time to read all of them. Therefore, Ogden must focus a lot on his titles in order to attract readers. When looking at his articles on the Telegraph website, most of his titles are very broad with a hidden question. The main one that caught my eye was titled, "Lewandowski: I want to move to England." It attracted me the most because it creates a story that could have many conclusions. I begin to ask myself many questions after reading this title, which provokes my urge to read it. Next, Ogden always has his first paragraph answering the main idea of the story in a simple way. "Robert Lewandowski has admitted he remains determined to play in the Premier League after insisting no deal has been struck for him to leave Borussia Dortmund for Bayern Munich next summer." This draws the reader even more engaged because it identifies other key information that he will talk about in the rest of his article. Also, from a biased point, Robert Lewandowski, is one of my favorite players to watch.
"People, do you think Governor Christie used to be one of those kids who refused to share? When other children came over, do you think he put all his toys in one big pile and sat on it?"
Gail Collins engages her readers by asking questions. Event though the questions might not be directed towards her audience, it still gives her writing the feel that she is talking to you and not just informing you. she doesnt just give you information, she also gives her opinion and adds a sense of humor to it. this makes me feel as if i am talking to a human rather than a computer.
"Against a revamped defense, he went on to finish 16-of-29 for 252 yards with a pair of touchdowns that went for 35 and 61 yards. Kaepernick also had a 17-yard gain on a scramble, which was reminiscent of the dual-threat quarterback that was built up to be unstoppable."
I think the writer really includes the reader in this paragraph because he really gets specific with the details. It really allows the reader to feel like he or she is extremely "in the know" about statistics and how the quarterback performed. I also really like this paragraph because it highlights how well Kap did in the game against the Cardinals and all forty-niner fans feel included when a reporter is highlighting their quarterback.
“Five weeks into the season and here's what we know:
We know that Stanford is for real. And that the Washington team it is playing Saturday at The Farm is also for real.
We know Georgia might get a rematch with Bama in the SEC championship.
We know Texas A&M can win a tough game on the road -- and the victory at Arkansas was a tough game.”
I really like how Gene Wojciechowski uses simple sentence structure and repetition to draw the reader in. His casual and blunt writing style makes his points really clear and understanding; for example, he uses the word “real”, a simple word, to be concise and candid in saying Stanford is a good team. He also repeats “We know” at the start of every new thought to add emphasis that this article on ESPN is about what the public can infer after the first five weeks of college football. Lastly, his overall topic is very intriguing especially since I watch college football on the weekends. I can really relate to this article.
One particular piece of advice that stands out was given to Rainville - apparently he was asking for it. While sitting gat the fire, he talked about a double line he was planning to ski, and Treadway didn't think he should touch the ground between the cliffs. "You're not going to get 50 f*ckin' covers hitting that as a double," said Treadway. True words from someone who knows what he's talking about.
My quote this week comes from the print edition of Freeksier. The author is sharing a moment between two individuals sitting around a campfire after a day in the cat scoping lines for the next day. By using the second person and direct quote, the author connects with the reader and puts the reader in the position of the skier himself. His strong language choice lets the reader personally interpret the tone given off in the quote and makes the reader feel as if it is being spoken directly to he or she. I think that the author does a really good job showing both attitude of the person telling the story but also the connection between both parties in the conversation as well as connection between the athletes and the reader.
Post a Comment