‘Representations are a product of political purpose’
Personal and political agendas direct authorial representation of historical events to imprint their own perception upon the audience. In Henry Reynolds’ non-fiction memoir, Why Weren’t We Told? (WWWT?), he replicates his own emotive experience of race relations in Australia to project his political opinions onto the audience. Deliberate omission and emphasis of evidence is also skilfully adopted in the politically satirical film V for Vendetta (Vendetta) directed by James McTeigue.
I'm being super picky with this, but do you mean to say there is an occasional omission of evidence? If not, you should use an oxford comma after "omission" to clarify, I think. But I am being picky! Additionally, George Orwell’s imperial novel Burmese Days forges a connection between the audience and composer, much like Reynolds, permitting the impress of authorial political agendas.
Nice! Never verbose, always clear - answering the question!The deliberate selection and emphasis of evidence specific to the composer’s political agenda allows the promotion their authorial purpose under the guise of an informative or entertainment medium. WWWT, a piece of non-fiction with a table of contents and index ironically does not properly evidence its sources and in some cases, name their composers. This is evident in Reynolds’ reference to an ‘old ethnographer’s’ 1971 letter “Everyone who has the interests of our country at heart… should oppose mongrelists.” This purposeful compositional choice provides no alternative perspective, regulating the readership’s capacity to autonomously draw conclusions and opinions.
OUTSTANDING sentence! Furthermore, Reynolds refrains from evidencing any positive events of race relations, such as interracial marriages or indigenous suffrage positioning the audience to view race relations as distinct racial factions. As such, Reynolds only offers evidence that explicitly supports his political agenda of racial activism.
I think you've linked really academically to the question.Whilst both Orwell and Reynolds adopt the native terminology to incite activism, Reynolds uses “Murris” and “Migloo” to exacerbate racial stratification, whereas Orwell ironically adopts the Burmese term “Burra Memsahib” (an attribution of status to British women), when describing Elizabeth to accentuate her antagonism.
I'd split this sentence after "to incite activism" because it is quite long, and when you use brackets you add another layer of thought to the reader, so it is easy to get lost along the way. Also, I think that you could clarify the place where politics sits here - I have no doubt you'll do it wonderfully because your writing is so impressive throughout. Something like, "native terminology to incite activism on a political level" or "to incite activism as an element of the political experience of the text." or something like this. Furthermore, Orwell critiques native discrimination through the satirical narration “It is so important...not to entangle oneself in 'native' quarrels…Even to know the rights and wrongs of a 'native' quarrel is a loss of prestige.”. Meiosis of quarrels in lieu of ‘conflict’ embodies Orwell’s critique of the imperialist devaluation of the native population. Additionally,
the verb choice of ‘entangle’ depicts the native Burmese as parasitical, mirroring European racism
Could you say something else here about the European racism - is it established in other parts of the novel? Perhaps, "Mirroring the European racism that permeates the lens of the novel." Or, "As established through the Eurocentric gaze of the novel". Orwell further critiques the superficial nature of imperial politics by focalising issues of physical appearance through Elizabeth’s alienation of Flory due to his birthmark “But worse than that, worse than anything, was his ugliness at this moment. Only the birthmark seemed alive in it. She hated him now for his birthmark.” Repetition of ‘birthmark’ emphasises its permeation of the protagonist, Flory’s identity like racial pervasion of classist divides. Replacing ‘Flory’ and ‘Elizabeth’ with gendered pronouns emphasises the universal superficiality of imperialist society. Consequently, the audience draws a seemingly autonomous political critique of imperialism, self-inducing Orwell’s political agenda of social unification.
I'm really impressed by your language. I do think that this paragraph pulls away from the direct question a bit, but it's not irrelevant nor is it waffle. The links just aren't as strong. The idea of racism doesn't read to me as an expression of racism, but more of a tangent that's related but not a branch from the trunk.Like Reynolds’ Historiographical form, McTeigue embeds non-fiction in Vendetta through the British Television Network(BTN), which crafts its presenter, Lewis Prothero to adopt convoluted vernacular of “neo-demagogues spouting their message of hate, a delusional and aberrant voice” in his report of Evey and V’s ‘terrorism’. By using uncommon vernacular, the BTN morphs the truth into their desired representation, which George Orwell himself explains “Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declares aims, one turns, as if were instinctively to long words.”
Is this in the novel, or something Orwell has said otherwise? If said otherwise, I'd say "In a later interview..." or something to that effect. McTeigue critiques the media’s use of superfluous terms (both within and outside of the film) to distort truth, though ironically does the same in his hyperbolic depiction of Thatcher as the menacing fascist Chancellor ‘Adam Suttlor’. Contrary to Prothero, V’s speech is consistently in succinct iambic pentameter, evident in the chiasmus “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” This syntactical structure conveys both McTeigue and V’s agenda of political subversion and the clear assertion of freedom. Distinct polarisation of the Government and V’s speech emphasises their dichotomous motives, invoking audience investment in V’s plight and by extension, McTeigue’s. By intentionally selecting evidence specific to their political views, composers align the readership with their own perception and in turn political agenda.
A much stronger paragraph here. Composers not only manipulate evidence to enforce their political views, but also use central persona to forge empathetic identification with the audience. Reynolds’ use of 1st person
first person* episodic and narrative form permits a relationship with the readership, depicted through the recount of his dream “For a moment I imagined myself there on the beach with the islanders. I felt that I stood on the other side of the frontier.” Abnormal inclusion of a dream in his historiographical piece conveys his personal and political affiliation with improving race relations and elevates his position as a revisionist historian by differentiating himself from traditional historiography. His memoir is a vehicle to align himself with the indigenous population, emphasising his dedication and encouraging the same activism within the audience.
Like Reynolds’ self-embodiment in his memoir, Orwell embeds himself in the central protagonist, Flory, a European timber merchant in Burma, paralleling his experience as a member of the British Imperial police in Burma.
Reallllly great link between texts!Orwell exacerbates racial discrimination in Burma through the notion that “In India you are not judged for what you do, but for what you are.” Antithesis entrenches the racial stratification of Burma and embeds his own critique of imperialism. It is through identification with Flory, that Orwell astutely evokes a political critique aligned with his own. In contrast to Orwell and Reynolds’ self-embodiment in a central persona, in Vendetta, McTeigue emblemises his agenda of political justice through the Guy Fawkes mask. As opposed to embedding his own personal experience, McTeigue metaphorically adopts the mask in the films production to facilitate ideological freedom, inviting audience participation in this plight. Panning close ups of London’s populous unveiling their face under Guy Fawkes masks as parliament explodes to triumphant music mirrors the duality of one’s agenda, which is both political and personal. McTeigue’s specific compositional choice for ‘V’ to remain masked explicates the fusion of his personal and political agendas, much like Reynolds in his choice to write in 1st person
first person* and Orwell’s self-embodiment of Flory. By aligning the central personas with their own viewpoint, the composers invoke empathy with the reader, allowing the imprint of their own political views.
Authorial distaste spawns activism within the composer who endows their emotive experience upon the audience, aligning their political viewpoints. WWWT evokes guilt within the audience in the emotive recount of a Palm Island prison, “There was such a disparity between the offence and the punishment, between the locks, reinforced door, bars, thick concrete walls and the thin little girls.” The juxtaposing language of ‘locks’, ‘reinforced’ and ‘thick’ in contrast the description of the ‘thin little girls’; coupled with paraxative enumeration of the setting’s description exacerbate the injustices committed against aboriginal youth. Reynolds’ distinct reference to children manipulates the reader’s sense of morality, aligning them with his political agenda of improving race relations. Similarly, juxtaposition to heighten the audience’s emotional response is also adopted in Vendetta, in the contrast between V’s home, the ‘shadow gallery’ and the government official’s meeting room. The shadow gallery’s warm, soft lighting and melodic music comfort the audience, reflecting V’s moral fidelity; contrastingly, the meeting room is sharp and artificially lighted with minorly toned music, inducing fear in the audience to convey the corrupted intent of the fascist government. Its chiaroscuro lighting illuminates their dichotomous political intent, exacerbating McTeigue’s critique of the Thatcherite government and its extensive social control, cleverly employing the film as a cautionary tale to incite political scepticism.
LOVE the way you've talked about chiaroscuro lighting!Orwell similarly evokes anger in the audience through Flory’s internal monologue “Dull boozing witless porkers! Was it possible that they could go on week after week, year after year, repeating word for word the same evil-minded drivel.” Parallelism of “week after week…word after word” conveys the repetitive social inertia of imperialism. Furthermore, inclusive conduplicatio
Ooh! I don't even know what this is! of “us” and “our” in “What a civilization
civilisation* (You've got the US spelling 
) is this of ours--this godless civilization…God have mercy on us, for all of us are part of it,” induces shame in the readership, encouraging reflection upon the ‘godless’ civilisation present both in the novel and Orwell’s context. Religious allusions to society’s godlessness condemns British Imperialism to political decay in need of reformation, evident in the imperative apostrophe “God have mercy on us”. Orwell skilfully uses Flory as a vehicle to convey the desperation of his political plight for social reformation and evoke this response within the audience. As such, all three composers evoke contrasting emotional responses in the readership to heighten ideological susceptibility and align them with their political purpose.
Through the elicitation of emotions within the readership, conscious selection and omission of evidence, and forging identification with the reader, composers can represent their own construction of reality, and imprint their own values upon the readership. Skewing their perception of events through their distinct textual choices permits the alignment of perception and perpetuates composers’ own political agenda.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only) (Read 602513 times)