2017 LA Club - Week 1

[HopefulLawStudent]

Welcome to the first week of the 2017 Language Analysis/Analysing Argument Club!

As a reminder of how this is working...

1. Every second Monday, I post a new thread with *something* for you to analyse. (That's this!)
2. You write a short analysis and post in this thread.
3. You give feedback on someone else's analysis (though, y'know, if you wanna do more, go crazy).[/url].

And check out this post for heaps more details, and remember to ask any questions if you're not sure how it's working!

Remember to uncheck anonymity just before posting if you're happy for people to know who you are (and want to snag some cheeky upvotes ).

Background: On February 19, 2016, Harper Lee, best remembered as the writer of the classic To Kill a Mockingbird, tragically passed away, aged 89. That day, The Washington Post published an opinion piece entitled “No way to treat an author: How Harper Lee lost control of her legacy” (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/critics-notebook-the-shame-of-harper-lees-muddled-legacy/2016/02/19/36624b62-d723-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.75d4a5c657bb) which purported that the sequel, “Go Set a Watchman” was akin to “a publishing sham foisted on a public eager for anything from its most beloved living author”. The opinion piece claimed that the sequel had basically altered the way in which readers saw the characters for the worse and therefore had the effect of tarnishing To Kill a Mockingbird’s (and Harper Lee’s) literary legacy (this being the “tragedy” of Harper Lee). This letter to the editor was written in response to that opinion piece.


The ‘tragedy’ of Harper Lee

What is the ‘tragic story’ of Harper Lee?

Let’s see: She publishes a novel beloved by readers in its own time and one that, more than a half-century after publication, continues to move millions of new readers each year. Hollywood, instead of botching the job, sensitively translates the book into one of the greatest movies of all time.

Many years later, the author makes her exit by publishing another novel that shatters sales records. Though a lesser work, it inspires new and impassioned conversations about literature and race in America. History will place “Go Set a Watchman” in its proper context, and “To Kill a Mockingbird” will hold its position as one of the most beloved works of American literature.

If you think that all adds up to a tale of woe, check out the line running out the door, around the block and over the horizon: It’s writers hoping to experience the same tragedy.

- Charles Slack, Trumbull, Conn.

---

NOTE: To post in this thread, you'll first need to register an ATAR Notes account. It's free, and should take like four seconds! Then, just scroll down to the bottom of this thread, and ask your questions in the "Quick Reply" box, as shown below.

[zhen]

I'll have a try at analysing this, but it's been over a month since my language analysis SAC, so I'm really rusty at this.

Charles Slack's letter to the editor "The 'tragedy' of Harper Lee" satirically condemns the notion that Harper Lee's story is tragic, contending that a myriad of writers would be envious of her situation. Slack accentuates that Harper's novel is "beloved by readers", which connotes admiration and respect, hence embellishing Harper's life whilst simultaneously portraying Harper as a person who is respected by society. Through this, Slack prompts the reader to view Harper as a a successful individual, hence reinforcing the idea that her life was not full of tragedy, but success. Slack progresses his argument by attacking the opposition through underscoring that Lee's "lesser work" has "inspire[d] new and impassioned conversations about literature and race", hence foregrounding the idea that this book which was deemed to have tarnished Lee's reputation, was in fact an influential novel. In doing this, Slack completely denounces the opposition's claims that the novel "Go Set a Watchman" has tarnished Lee's reputation. Furthermore, this also positions the reader to perceive these claims that Lee's life was a tragedy as ridiculous, as he stresses that even in her "lesser work" she still achieved numerous successes.

[Anonymous]

So glad the LA club is on this year, it's reallyyyy not the best language analysis but here my attempt at it.

In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack sets out to negate the portrayal of Harper Lee's life as a tragedy by utilising satire to convey the magnitude of her success. Slack aggrandises the reception of Lee's novel by illustrating how it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', followed by the use of the superlative 'greatest' to describe its movie adaptation, immediately engendering derision in readers at the opinion piece's description of this, as a tragedy. Slack, depicting Lee's admitedly 'lesser book' to have ignited nation wide discussions, exemplifies the influence of her literature and subsequently highlights the absurdity in the opinion piece's claims.  Continuing with his use of superlatives, coupled with positive connotations, Slack portrays Lee's debut novel as 'one of the most beloved works', inculcating in readers, admiration towards Lee's achievements, thereby inclining them to  dismiss notions of Lee's ostensibly "tragic story"' as nonsensical. Through Slack's mocking tone, describing the numerous writers being envious of Lee's success referred to as a 'tragedy', readers are left staunchly opposed to idea of her legacy being destroyed by the evidently noteworthy 'Go Set a Watchman'.

Note- 'moves millions' should actually be 'move millions' but it crosses out the square brackets and whatever comes after for some reason.

[Anonymous]

So glad the LA club is on this year, it's reallyyyy not the best language analysis but here my attempt at it.

In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack sets out to negate the portrayal of Harper Lee's life as a tragedy by utilising satire to convey the magnitude of her success. Slack aggrandises the reception of Lee's novel by illustrating how it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', followed by the use of the superlative 'greatest' to describe its movie adaptation, immediately engendering derision in readers at the opinion piece's description of this, as a tragedy. Slack, depicting Lee's admitedly 'lesser book' to have ignited nation wide discussions, exemplifies the influence of her literature and subsequently highlights the absurdity in the opinion piece's claims.  Continuing with his use of superlatives, coupled with positive connotations, Slack portrays Lee's debut novel as 'one of the most beloved works', inculcating in readers, admiration towards Lee's achievements, thereby inclining them to  dismiss notions of Lee's ostensibly "tragic story"' as nonsensical. Through Slack's mocking tone, describing the numerous writers being envious of Lee's success referred to as a 'tragedy', readers are left staunchly opposed to idea of her legacy being destroyed by the evidently noteworthy 'Go Set a Watchman'.

Note- 'moves millions' should actually be 'move millions' but it crosses out the square brackets and whatever comes after for some reason.

Absolutely amazing analysis. It's so hard to find flaws here. I feel like the only thing I can really point out is that when you mention that the writer highlights that it is 'one of the most beloved works' and that it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', you immediately move onto the next part of your analysis or immediately jump to the intended effect on the reader without really unpacking the quote. Anyway great job. I wish I could write like you. 

[zhen]

Absolutely amazing analysis. It's so hard to find flaws here. I feel like the only thing I can really point out is that when you mention that the writer highlights that it is 'one of the most beloved works' and that it 'moves millions' even after a 'half-century', you immediately move onto the next part of your analysis or immediately jump to the intended effect on the reader without really unpacking the quote. Anyway great job. I wish I could write like you. 

Forgot to tick the not anonymous box 

[vcekaleidoscope]

Whoopsss- I'm a bit new to AN 

Thank you so much ( please I've got a LA sac tomorrow but you've smashed this piece after over a month since you're sac)- you're absolutely right about needing to unpack the words more.
I was a bit wary of giving you feedback because I really don't think there are any faults here but I'll give this a go.
-You're structure is really good in giving evidence, explaining the effect, then the effect on readers and finally its contribution to the writer's contention
-Maybe just with you're phrase of 'completely denounces', you might come across as being more evaluative than analytical
-The phrase 'attacking' the opposition, could possibly be replaced because he seems to attack the opposing views rather than the actual opposition, also attacking might be a bit powerful of a word
(But these are really minor things!!)

[Anonymous]

Good job! Keep up the great work everyone!

[HopefulLawStudent]

Ah whoops. Forgot to tick the box. 

[Anonymous]

I might be completely off here, so someone please correct me if I am, but I don't think you've interpreted the material correctly. The Washington Post isn't suggesting that Lee's life was tragic in the sense that it was full of failure and misery, but more so in the vein of a tragic hero that conventionally loses an original high status. Through the use of 'tragedy', they posit that Lee embodies this quality in that she was originally this awesome writer who wrote to herald social change, but is now, in steep descent, one that does so for public demand and no other meaningful intent. Also, the author isn't that bitter and forceful in his disapproval as you portray him as out to be, it's more like a "no, you guys are wrong" with a mocking yet passive "shut up please" at the end. Words like "condemn" and "denounce" sort of exaggerate his disapproval, and one's like "reject" are probably more correct. Nevertheless, I still marked your piece but in assumption that these misinterpretations skewed your analysis, I just marked accordingly to how you've read it. Hope it still helps .

Charles Slack's letter to the editor "The 'tragedy' of Harper Lee" satirically The letter doesn't consistently display all of satire's three main characteristics, them being humour, exaggeration and mockery, so "satirically" probably isn't the correct word. Maybe just 'mockingly'? condemns the notion that Harper Lee's story is tragic ‘Tragic’ is a vaguely used word in the letter, so it’s best not to repeat it within your analysis. Instead, expand on it; how or why is her story ‘tragic’?, contending that a myriad of writers Myriad implies thousands and thousands, even uncountable almost, and to be frank, I doubt that much even care about who Harper Lee is, let alone be jealous of her. would be envious of her situation. Slack accentuates This means to make something even MORE notable, so it's a bit weird to use it when you haven't yet established that many love Lee's novel. that Harper's novel is "beloved by readers", which connotes admiration and respect Nice connotative analysis! , hence embellishing Bit iffy about this word use since embellish means to make something physical more visually appealing, or a statement interesting by lying, so embellishing someone's life is a bit 'eh?' Harper's life whilst simultaneously portraying Harper as a person who is respected by society. Through this, Slack prompts the reader to view Harper as a a successful individual, hence reinforcing the idea that her life was not full of tragedy, but success. Nice! Slack progresses his argument by attacking the opposition through underscoring that Lee's "lesser work" has "inspire[d] new and impassioned conversations about literature and race", hence foregrounding This means to make something most prominent or important, like an “IN YO FACE” kinda thing, so it’s isn’t that correct in this circumstance. Maybe highlights or emphasizes? the idea that this book which was deemed to have tarnished Lee's reputation, was in fact an influential novel. In doing this, Slack completely You should try to avoid making such absolute claims in argument analysis, given that you’re analysing someone else’s work and are never really sure of their true intents. denounces the opposition's claims that the novel "Go Set a Watchman" has tarnished Lee's reputation. Furthermore, this also positions the reader to perceive these claims that Lee's life was a tragedy as ridiculous, as he stresses that even in her "lesser work" she still achieved numerous successes. Good analysis!

[Anonymous]

^^ That's from me; just wanted to put in a disclaimer that I'm also in year 12 and have no clue if my feedback is correct. Oh, and there's probably some typo or confusing explanation somewhere in there, sorry!

[Anonymous]

I might be completely off here, so someone please correct me if I am, but I don't think you've interpreted the material correctly. The Washington Post isn't suggesting that Lee's life was tragic in the sense that it was full of failure and misery, but more so in the vein of a tragic hero that conventionally loses an original high status. Through the use of 'tragedy', they posit that Lee embodies this quality in that she was originally this awesome writer who wrote to herald social change, but is now, in steep descent, one that does so for public demand and no other meaningful intent. Also, the author isn't that bitter and forceful in his disapproval as you portray him as out to be, it's more like a "no, you guys are wrong" with a mocking yet passive "shut up please" at the end. Words like "condemn" and "denounce" sort of exaggerate his disapproval, and one's like "reject" are probably more correct. Nevertheless, I still marked your piece but in assumption that these misinterpretations skewed your analysis, I just marked accordingly to how you've read it. Hope it still helps .

Thanks for the feedback. I thought that I interpreted the tragedy the same way you did. I thought that the tragedy was that the second book tarnished Harper Lee's reputation, rather than the idea that her life was full of failure and misery. Maybe it was confusing because I didn't introduce the context and used the word tragedy often, which has negative connotations of sadness and grief throughout the essay. But, I agree with the rest of your comments and I'll watch my use of words.

[zhen]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought that I interpreted the tragedy the same way you did. I thought that the tragedy was that the second book tarnished Harper Lee's reputation, rather than the idea that her life was full of failure and misery. Maybe it was confusing because I didn't introduce the context and used the word tragedy often, which has negative connotations of sadness and grief throughout the essay. But, I agree with the rest of your comments and I'll watch my use of words.

Whoops. Forgot to tick the box. 

[Anonymous]

can someone send me a list of all language techniques that are way better than that of the web's, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought that I interpreted the tragedy the same way you did. I thought that the tragedy was that the second book tarnished Harper Lee's reputation, rather than the idea that her life was full of failure and misery. Maybe it was confusing because I didn't introduce the context and used the word tragedy often, which has negative connotations of sadness and grief throughout the essay. But, I agree with the rest of your comments and I'll watch my use of words.

Oh whoops, I must've interpreted you wrong (oh the irony). And yeah, I also think your piece is missing that context, specifically that of Lee's reputation/legacy as an author who challenged her society's inherent prejudices.

[clarke54321]

In his letter to the editor, Charles Slack employs a mocking tone to destabilise the belief that Harper Lee’s legacy as a writer has become unrightfully tarnished. Slack’s use of inverted commas around the phrase ‘tragic story,’ indicates his inability to understand why Lee’s career has been casted as devastating or miserable. Rather, the commas assist Slack in conveying the idea that Lee’s story is far from tragic and that reactions have been grossly exaggerated. Encouraging readers to also adopt this viewpoint, Slack relies on the objective idiom, ‘let’s see.’ Here, Slack intends to establish himself as an impartial commentator of the situation, who seeks to lay out the raw facts and reach an unbiased conclusion. Striving for this approach to induce trust and confidence in readers, Slack assuredly asserts that Lee’s newly discovered novel, ‘Go Set a Watchman,’ ‘inspires new and impassioned conversations about literature and race.’ The verb ‘inspires,’ enables Slack to give pertinence to the idea that conversations have been reignited with a newfound vigour by the aforementioned novel; a vigour, which, as indicated by the adjective ‘new,’ has previously been missing or exhausted in conversation. Consequently, readers are urged to perceive additions to Lee’s work as not a ‘woe[ful] tragedy,’ but as efficacious and advantageous to modern day literature and ultimately, Lee’s name as writer.

 ** I will mark the work of another user tomorrow!