http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/no-penalty-for-torture.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This article caught my attention from the title of it as I was browsing through the editorials online for the New York Times. The title is short, sweet and to the point of what the article is about. After analyzing it to see how the author sways the reader into believing something, I found interesting uses of diction, detail, and syntax.
Already from the word "torture" in the title, we get an image in our minds, and it's never a pretty one. No matter what one thinks of as torture, images of faces scrunched in pain flash across our minds as silent screams echo in our ears. The author's great usage of diction puts the audience all on the same page from the start, and keeps going from there. Instead of saying "In these bad cases", the author writes "In these egregious cases, showing that the cases were not just bad, but horribly and tremendously terrible. The replacement of one word for another can change the entire way someone views a work. In this case, the diction creates a tone that is serious and dark. This is also shown when it is written, "...harsh techniques authorized by the infamous torture memos cooked up by Justice Department lawyers to try to justify the unjustifiable." Instead of saying "created" or "written", the author writes "cooked", wanting to give a word similar to that of what witches may do for cruel deeds.
The detail given in a persuasive piece of writing always can't be taken too seriously, because that is what the author wants- for the reader to fall victim to what they read and believe every piece of information fed to them. And that's exactly what this author does splendidly. By including details like "One of the prisoners, a suspected militant named Gul Rahman, died in 2002 after being shackled to a concrete wall in near-freezing temperatures in a secret C.I.A. prison in Afghanistan. The other, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in C.I.A. custody in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where his corpse was photographed wrapped in plastic." This information isn't necessary to get the author's point across, but helps to support his/her argument about the use of torture from the CIA and its consequences, or rather lack of. It gets a reaction from the audience due to its raw harshness. Also including details such as "In June 2011, Mr. Holder said that about 100 cases of detainee treatment had been reviewed and none warranted further investigation," warrants reader emotion by creating an anger in the reader, leaving us wondering, "Why not?! Why weren't they further investigated?!" The use of detail to create emotion to support the author is a large part of persuasive writing.
The author’s usage of syntax wasn't anything new. Long, drawn out sentences are used when wanting to explain ideas, such as, "Not only have those responsible escaped criminal liability, but the administration has succeeded in denying victims of the harsh methods any day in court, using exaggerated claims of secrecy and executive power to get federal judges, who should know better, to toss out claims for civil relief." The usage of many commas makes this sentence hard to understand on the first reading, as the idea is changing. But this long sentence to inform and create ideas is followed with a concise, easy to swallow sentence of "The broad denial of justice to victims disgraces both the administration and the courts." Since this comes after such a long sentence, it seems much more emphasized.
One thing you should keep in mind is that diction is only one word, not phrases. I liked how you not only stated the relationship of the diction the author used but also how it connect to the article. Your second paragraph was full of quotes backed up with explanations which adds depth to your writing. I think that the use of long sentences are more useful for this type of article because point are easy to make as opposed to short, choppy sentences. Even though syntax isn't new, I think it does play a major which you seem to understand.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your paragraphs about diction and detail. You used a lot of examples that did exactly what you wanted them to: support what you were saying. You did a really good job picking out the specific evidence that would work best in your close reading. The one thing that stuck out to me was your syntax paragraph. You obviously understand syntax, but I think the paragraph as a whole could have been better developed to help prove your point that the syntax leads the reader to where the author wants them to go.
ReplyDeleteYour first paragraph is great because you use vivid diction to describe the diction in the article! In your third paragraph you quote from the article about a man shackled to a wall in near freezing temperatures and a corpse wrapped in plastic. I think that the quote was too long, the sentence about the man shackled to the wall was long enough because you go on to talk about the man not the corpse. Also, a conclusion paragraph to sum up everything would be nice.
ReplyDelete