Heya, posting real fast because my sister made me promise I'd go to bed a 9:00 (bit sick, 9:02 already) so hope this makes vague sense! Not that detailed either
A Good Apple, Rotten at the Core?
‘A Good Apple, Rotten at the Core?’ is a persuasive speech by David Bradlow written in response to the social and political issue all ‘Social Fury’ public speakers were asked to write about.
Be more specific about the context or ‘spark’ for this speech; ‘the social and political issue’ is too vague. Delivered on 20th of August, 2012, Bradlow contends in informative yet confronting manner that we should cut down on our never-ending demands of the ‘latest technology’, foreseeing that the release of the upcoming iPhone 5 will trigger yet another worldwide attention.
David Bradlow’s speech, ‘A Good Apple, Rotten at the Core?’ (delivered 20-Aug-2012 at ‘Social Fury’) contends that… You see that’s briefer? In an LA intro, think briefer=better, as long as important content isn’t sacrificed. This speech
serves most relevance is most relevant to those are up-to-date with today’s modern technology, but especially the subsection of ignorant and self-interested individuals who are oblivious to environmental and human cost that comes with their continuous coveting for new technology
don’t think you can label these people as ‘ignorant and self-interested’; rather, ‘whom Bradlow CONTENDS are ignorant and self-interested’. You’re not allowed to ‘judge’ the audience in language analysis.. The accompanying imagery is a representation of the ‘rotten core’ at the heart of the Apple company, which supports Bradlow’s urgency to the underlying ‘truth’ in the production of phones that we, as consumers, need to know about.
In the intro, I quite like to give a quick overview of the major general thrusts/approaches/persuasive methods of the author. e.g. “he initially ridicules technology addicts as incompetent and nonsensical, before more harshly blaming technology purchasers as knowingly ‘fuelling’ the suffering of others for their own superficial pleasure.” It gives a deeper understanding of the contention and big-picture understanding of how the author’s arguing. Bradlow adopts the persona of a technology user and Through adopting the persona of a technology user, Bradlow (not important, just sounds nicer) 
paints them as nonsensical and empty-headed, compelling all readers to reflect on their behaviour as we all engage with technology. Bradlow mocks these people, depicting them as especially susceptible to melodrama
at times, having the need to retreat to the ‘nearest men’s bathroom’ over slightest incidents such as ‘forgetting phone[s ]’. In addition, their narrow-mindedness and difficulty seeing other perspectives or alternatives is underlined when Bradlow under the persona, exclaims, ‘God forbid I look outside to check the weather, [having depended on phone usually]’. Losing in touch with reality but passively relying on inbuilt features of phones depicts them as being trapped within their own world, and is confirmed by their ineptitude when phone fails, forcing them to interact with the world independently: ‘I can’t navigate my calendar, I don’t know any important phone numbers’.
Essentially, Bradlow ridicules/mocks/derides/satirises/scorns/caricatures them; but most important is to discuss how this makes the audience feel. You’ve done that first step quite well (analysing how he presents/positions the technology users), but now you should link that to his contention and the impact on the audience more – like, how does it make the audience feel about technology users? And do THEY themselves want to look like that? And what does that suggest about technology addiction in general? And if the audience doesn’t want to appear to be so superficial and idiotic, that’ll surely move them on the issue? By disclosing spendthrift nature of many modern-day people who undercut ‘antique’ as being ‘three years old’, more older readers are
coerced into evaluating them as unappreciative and wasteful members of society
beautiful – it’s great to look at different subsections of the audience. Displaying the current generation as being self-interested and blinded by desire, Bradlow attempts to instil guilt in their readers
audience/listeners/viewers (it’s a speech); btw, which section of the audience are you looking at? The older ones you were just talking about aren’t likely to be the category he’s trying to make feel guilty.,
coercing readers to be conscious of underlying or ‘hidden truths’ to be regarded as intelligent members of society.
Bradlow then present the negative implications in the production of iPhones,
coercing readers to question if it is worth exacerbating ‘human misfortune’ and ‘environmental negligence’. The life cycle of the iPhone is grouped by Bradlow under four bold subheadings, ‘Mining’, ‘Processing’, ‘Manufacturing’ and ‘Consumption and Waste’, angling the readers that consequences of their greediness resonate in world scale.
‘Angling’ doesn’t fit like that in a sentence – try ‘angling the readers TO SEE/believe THAT…’ Also, wondering why you chose this paragraph split? Presenting real-life cases around the world, Bradley attempts to instil guilt in readers so that they may no longer ‘fuel’ the demands for iPhones. Disclosing the information that ’43.2%’ of China’s rivers are ‘classified as unsuitable for human contact’, readers are led to sympathy and sadness,
because while Apple’s processing plants may satisfy their ‘I must have the latest technology’ mentality, other innocent citizens are prevented from experiencing even the most basic and cheapest level of recreations such as swimming or fishing the underlined bit spends a bit long just describing what’s in the article; shorten the description, and spend more time on how that makes people feel. e.g. The revelation that their unnecessary desire for ‘the latest technology’ robs others of basic recreations arouses a sense that their actions as not merely petty and selfish, but indeed destructive and harmful to others. (idk, that wasn’t the best either but ah well) . The performance pressure related with producing ’90 iPhones…every minute’ for Foxconn workers are subject of pity and sympathy
sentence doesn’t make sense, but is also designed to elicit guilt in readers who are confronted by the attempted suicides that have risen from trying to meet the demands of shoppers who revel in ‘transparent staircases and bleached marble of an Apple store’ without understanding their ‘abysmally low pay’.
From the sound of it, you have the PERFECT opportunity to talk all about contrast. You have lots to milk here! (not that I’ve read the article) Think about the title, a ‘good Apple rotten at the core’. This implies that on the outside, the side that WE see, it all looks good; but inside, it’s rotten. Draw direct contrast between words like ‘transparent staircases and bleached marble’ and ‘toxic smog’/the image. He’s presenting one side as superficial/flashy/selfish/artificial/egotistical (think about how ‘bleached marble’ makes you feel, it’s shiny and superficial), and in DIRECT CONTRAST he presents the other side as suffering, crying, trapped, forced to work in disgusting conditions, etc. Heightened contrast between dark and light, how would that aim to make the audience feel? Consequences in the production of phones are barbarically represented when Bradlow conveys it could lead to miscarriages and health hazard for children, urging readers to choose other’s welfare over our materialistic desire that are capable of being restrained. This sense is mirrored in the accompanying image, wherein it depicts the swelling, black smoke outflowing from factories is shaped into Apple’s representative logo. Bradlow positions his readers to associate Apple with the negative consequences he has outlined,
Apple=black, disgusting, impure, revolting, foul, corrupt – both morally and physically? Idk to make this their personalised connection with Apple, so that consumers decrease their demands
, and supply in turn will also quieten down. The unsettling personification that technology was ‘born’ from ‘loaded guns… toxic smog... [and] tears of mistreated Fox conn labourers’, readers are encouraged to realise again that consumers are only part of the celebration and happiness that is associated with birth, while it is those ‘impoverished’ countries who endure underlying process of excruciating pain.
long run-on sentence, needs a rethink – also not 100% clear, and could draw further how it makes the audience FEELBradlow presents Apple as a money-hungry, angling his readers that
again, ‘to believe that’ it is the readers who need eliminate these disconcerting problems since the company will continue to act ‘without pause for consideration of … impact[ s]’. Bradlow associates Apple with ‘flooding’, highlighting the company’s potent force over its consumers through images of unpredictability and uncontrollability. However, Bradley, appropriating religious flippancy, likens the CEO of Apple as ‘preaching to his congregation’ of consumers, prompting the readers to see that the company is brainwashing their prospect consumers to buy their products under the pretension of being a priest. In addition, it also underlines the close netted relationship between consumers and the supplier’s power, as without his ‘congregation’, a priest would lose his power and tarnish his position in the Catholic church.
remember we (especially the younger generation) are in a widely secular society who views religion as dumb, idiotic and all about (as you said) brainwashing; they wouldn’t want to be associated with that Bradlow ultimately prompts the readers to see that they hold as much power as the Apple who sways them, and not demanding their products is enough to stem the company’s ‘short-cornered’ schemes.
and hence they have an opportunity to fix the problem --> encourages them to act Bradlow concludes by mounting more responsibility on the consumers through a series of inclusive language. ‘we…know what we are buying’ and ‘we know..[that it] exacerbates human misfortune and environmental negligence’
focus not on the inclusive language so much (unless you directly draw out the impact of that) as on the active verb ‘know’, which highlights their sense of responsibility; here is where your quotes are a bit too long, you could say something like ‘the forceful repetition of the verb ‘we know’ highlights…’, unless you draw something specific about the words in a quote, in general cut out those words aims to highlight that we are no longer oblivious to possible consequences of phone production, and that we now have no excuse to not ‘look outside to check the weather’.
‘Blame’/‘accuse’/’condemn’ could be good words in here somewhere; and in those quotes, the word “KNOW” is the word that seems to me to need the most emphasis The word, ‘fuel’, that is employed to describe the purchaser’s position on this ‘shameful irresponsibility’
sounds like a good phrase! how bout you delve into the impact of the word ‘shameful’?, implies that they play the most significant role in sustaining these immoral schemes that multinational corporations like the Apple adopt. By the harsh generalisation that readers will in the end buy their iPhone 5s ‘in the next few months’, readers are prompted to deeply reflect and ‘peer into [their] own reflection’ in their past behaviour and to ascertain their future actions in the sense that Bradlow severely belittle their moral principles
and guidance. Bradlow advocates
his readers to that his readers ‘ask Siri where she really comes from’ before closing his speech. By suggesting that there are underlying secrets beneath the friendly and caring female tone, readers are again pushed to feel uncomfortable and confronted, a powerful finish reminding them once again of the ‘hidden truth’ behind technology production.
Home
Help
Search
Login
