Close Reading 6

Though we as a nation may not support the movement, we can easily agree on how horrifying the numerous injuries and assaults that have resulted from the police brutality. 

The blogger behind Occupy Allstreets keys into our intuition that humans hurting other humans is wrong in this article about a woman stripped down into her underwear and helplessly left in the middle of the street. 

He uses candid imagery to depict how malicious these cops are, and how the woman was "violently stripped of her protest costume and disgarded on the ground in her bra and panties." Even after the cops had destroyed her costume, "The remaining severed costume was violently torn from her body while the protester herself was disgarded, semi-naked and crying on the ground." From his imagery, we can truly see how powerless the woman is and how the police victimize her to utter humiliation. 

His detail further heightens the imagery, as he talks about how the police mutilated her costume. He mentions that "a knife was requested and used by MCC Officers as the Protest Costume was cut from her body," infuriating us as we can picture the police pick up that knife and ruthlessly stabbing the costume. He finishes nothing that "NO EFFORT was made to assess her health," further infuriating us. 

The language is extremely dry, in that the blogger simply puts the situation out there as it was. He adds none of his own personal opinions, allowing us to decipher our own opinions from what has been presented. Readers often do not like opinionated papers that are suggesting their own sentiments are wrong, and this way the blogger appeals to a broader range of people rather than a targeted group of readers. 

Close Reading 4: Occupy Wallstreet

Setting aside all the protests and mixed sentiments, Meg Lanker looks at the connection between campaign contributions and why Obama hasn't really acted upon the Occupy Wallstreet movement. 


Lanker starts her article off by quoting Obama's statement on how "the people of Egypt have rights that are universal....including the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny.(Obama) " She then points out how ironic it is that he "will stand up for them everywhere (Obama)," while he should be caring about his own nation at home facing similar issues with police brutality and suppression of specific rights.


At both the start and finish, Lanker's language does not convey high approval of Mr.Obama. Her language is especially effective as she incorporates varying syntax, specifically short to-the-point statements. After she asks whether it is"a radical statement to say the president should have issued [that statement] long-ago, (Lanker)" she quickly answers it with a harsh "because he hasn’t (Lanker)." Clearly she is unhappy about the the lack of action on our president's part, and does not bother to hide it. 


In her concluding paragraphs, she bluntly summarizes what Obama said, that we're "essentially... supposed to support democratic movements elsewhere, not here at home" and "God forbid [we] actually participate" (Lanker). Her language taunts our president, and then she closes everything with "Gotcha," a quick syntactical zinger. 


Between her introduction and conclusion, she drowns us with detail. Giving us staggering numerical values on how much huge financial monsters such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have contributed heavily to Obama's presidential campaign, we can see why Obama maybe hasn't taken action. Instead of just criticizing our nation's president, she presents these details so that we can form opinions on our own. 

Close Reading 3: Florida's Mandatory Drug Testing

Government policies are a great source of debate and controversy, which is just perfect for bloggers to write about. 


Meg Lanker is among this throng of bloggers, who discusses Florida's mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients in her blog Cognitive Dissonance. She effectively uses critical language and referenced statistical details to point out all the flaws in the program, while then utilizing syntax and imagery to appeal to our emotions. 


Throughout her article, Lanker incorporates significant statistical data before even beginning to add her own commentary. While the tests total cost about $1,140, the state is "saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive (WFTV)". Without a degree in economics or political science, most people have enough common sense to come to the conclusion that Florida is obviously losing money. 


After presenting a valid case through the use of numbers and data, she then contributes her opinions through judgmental and somewhat accusatory language. By saying she's "not at all shocked by this (Lanker)," she makes it seem as if it was obvious from the start that this program was not going to succeed. She then talks about how "Florida should have learned this 10 years ago, when they tried this program and had to dump it for cost reasons (Lanker)." 


Furthermore, she also merges her strong language with differing syntax. She employs regular indicative sentences, while also alternating those with interrogative questions. For example, we can really see the combined effect of syntax and language with questions like "So drug tests aren’t infallible and they’re not saving Florida any money? (Lanker)" that really make us realize how unsuccessful Florida's strategies have proved to be. Clearly, Lanker does not agree with Florida's mandatory drug testing policies and uses her strong language to convey that. 


But Lanker does more than just make us oppose the program; she makes us sympathize with the welfare recipients who must endure this program by means of strong imagery.  In the last paragraph, she puts forth a  hypothetical family of innocent kids with parents who may have done drugs just once or twice. By evoking the images of powerless, almost even vulnerable, kids,  Lanker makes us question whether Florida's drug testing program is preventing drug abusers from getting money or simply preventing helpless kids from getting the necessary aid that they need to grow and develop. She ends on this emotional note, truly making us wonder if this program is effective .

Close Reading 2: In This Rape Center, the Patient was 3

In This Rape Center, the Patient was 3, touches on the difficult knowledge of child rape.

Nicholas Kristof recounts his experiences in an African rape treatment center located in Sierra Leone. Though he presents some great substantive information, he still manages to tastefully surface his subtle disapproval of child rape through the gravity of the topic. He coordinates all the aspects of DIDLS to illustrate all the grim aspects of rape, consequently revealing his opposed viewpoint of rape.

When considering diction, we can easily connect it with his language as the two aspects sort of play off of each other. His diction choice includes words like "crisis", "staggering," and "epidemic" to convey that this is really no laughing matter. These words together than provide for his overall quite serious language as he progresses on about child rape.

He uses quite shocking imagery, further enhanced by his use of detail. Instead of just telling the stories of all the rapes that he has witness, he makes it clear how victimized these poor young girls are. He uses the painful details of all the consequences these young girls have to face, ranging from losing weight and fever to death "of internal injuries sustained" from a rape (Kristof). His detail also incorporates the awfully young ages of the girls, the youngest being only 2 and a half months old. Furthermore, he includes the details of how unjustified the legal systems are to make the reading audience even more appalled at the situation. The way he presents this sullen image definitely shows his large objections to these rapes. 


But Kristof doesn't stop there with his writing. Syntactically, Kristov overwhelms his audience with long flowing sentences. These sentences often have more than just one clause, and contain numerous coordinating conjunctions. He then combines these long sentences into long paragraphs for an even heavier emphasis of not only his writing but his topic in general. 


In conclusion, Kristof subtly uses all the facets of DIDLS to convey his opinions against child rape in Africa. He masterfully combines diction with language and imagery with detail to integrate his own personal views into an article that actually proves to be pretty informative. 

Closed Reading 1: I'm Comic Sans, Asshole

I'm Comic Sans, Asshole by Mike Lacher is a humorous hypothetical monologue of a castaway computer font. 


Right off the bat, Lacher uses very aggressive diction. His fierce, one could say even belligerent tone, tells us readers that he definitely is not messing around. He believes that Comic Sans is not as bad of a font as most people think, and that it truly has some good uses. He is passionate about giving Comic Sans a chance to make its rightful mark on both the printed word and online websites. 


Readers immediately notice the vulgar language that Lacher uses throughout his monologue. He steers clear from big sophisticated words and uses copious amounts of profanity. His simple language allows anyone to understand the point he is conveying. Furthermore, he cleverly uses imagery through his personification of comic sans.  When Lacher has Comic Sans go up there and assert that he's "like daffodils in motherfucking spring" and that he's also "on every major operating system since Microsoft fucking Bob," we know that Comic Sans is someone we would never want to make fun of. Lacher makes us almost want to picture a big tough guy who is super jacked and decked out in a black leather motorcycle jacket. 

By bringing Comic sans to life through lines such as "I’m Comic Sans, and I’m the best thing to happen to typography," Lacher brings to mind a really willful individual rather than a set of wimpy looking letters. His choice of obscene language also supports his haughty diction quite suitably, which is only enhanced by the personification of the font. When all is said and done, we readers may even reconsider how we feel towards the once disregarded comic sans.