After every mass shooting in America, a discussion inevitably sparks up about gun control. The issue of mental health has been completely ignored for years, and the author of "Thinking the Unthinkable" is sick of it. Her post uses a personal anecdote supported by statistics and events nationwide to question why we as a nation are ignoring mental health, and she heavily uses syntax and control over the presentation of details to garner emotional investment from the reader.
The post starts off by juxtaposing Adam Lanza's crime with her problem: her son missed the bus. A reader would be inclined to read on, either wondering why that is relevant or wondering how dare she compare her trivial problem to the mass murder of children. The effect is continued when she describes the conversation at length: "his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises." The reader gets impatient. She then tells the reader how her son called her a "stupid bitch" and how weakly she responded. The reader at this point is thinking not only is she a bad person for comparing her issue to the mass murder of children, but she's a bad parent for letting her kid behave like this. Eventually, she gets to the point: her son is mentally ill. This detail converts a reader's anger into deep sympathy and understanding. She then finishes her anecdote of how she took her screaming violent child to the hospital, and supplies statistics on mental health to the now-solemn reader. She also tells us more about Michael, how he loves learning and his snuggle animal collection, to generate more sympathy, pushing to make the reader understand that mentally ill people are people too.
Her syntax is crafted to give the above effects maximum potency. For example, followed immediately after her comparison of her son missing the bus to Adam Lanza is a pause, in which the reader has time to think how ridiculous she is. The long, thorough description before getting to the point of the story serves to exasperate the reader, fueling their distaste for the author. When she tells the reader her son is mentally ill, she does so with three concise sentences. These blunt sentences slam the reader with that information in a short time, dispelling their anger and causing their heart to sink immediately. The last sentence, "But he terrifies me," makes the reader want to continue reading. The same techniques are repeated throughout the piece, with the three last sentences serving as a harrowing conclusion so the reader will internalize the piece.
This is a good essay, but it has one major problem: We're supposed to analyze works with three of the DIDLS, not two. The two you used, however, details and syntax, you back up with good evidence and do a good job relating it to the thesis. I would suggest creating a topic sentence for your details paragraph, however, as it makes it more efficient, clear and concise. I'm not too familiar with warrants, but they seem good enough to me. Your syntax paragraph is good, and it has a good topic sentence, too, though I would consider making it a bit more specific. You back it up with good examples and relate them consistently well to the thesis. One last thing, though, would be to add in a conclusion; it ends rather unceremoniously. A good essay though, I'm impressed with how well you stuck to your thesis! It's a problem I usually struggle with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly. The ones you did do, you did very well. Just make sure to follow the directions next time and use three of the DIDLS instead of two. You have a very nice thesis and stuck to it perfectly! Again, I agree with Kelly that you may need to add some topic sentences to strengthen your argument.
ReplyDeleteOkay, not going to repeat what Kelly and Hillary said, so besides the obvious this was very well written and shows a higher level of understanding than "The author uses good details and syntax to...". It was more casual and easy to follow, and I actually want to go read that article now...You did well explaining how the author's techniques are going to illicit a response from the reader.
ReplyDelete