Protesters Against Wall Street
No matter where political loyalties lie, most Americans tend to get rather fired up during discussion of government. This emotion can often prevent the speaker from making an effective point: he is too close to the subject. This is not a problem for the author of “Protesters Against Wall Street”. In this article, details are used to convey an authoritative yet calm tone. The tone combines with use of diction and syntax to create a feeling that there is a need for change in the mind of the readers.
The tone of the article makes the readers believe the author knows what he is talking about. Details are extremely helpful in accomplishing this. The author provides statistics such as “The jobless rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.6 percent over the past year…” and “Before the recession, the share of income held by those in the top 1 percent of households was 23.5 percent, the highest since 1928 and more than double the 10 percent level of the late 1970s”. These numbers support the author’s position on a content level. They say that the situation is pretty bad and must be fixed. However, more importantly, they establish a sense that the author is intelligent and well researched. The audience really has no idea where these numbers come from. However, the simple fact that they are present helps us to place our confidence with the author.
The established tone works in conjunction with various other techniques to create an overall belief in the need for governmental change. Diction gives the author’s message punch. He selects words such as “Extreme”, “dysfunctional”, and “suffer”. These words all carry a powerfully negative connotation, giving the piece the overall air of disapproval. The reader is swept along with these words, subconsciously goaded into agreeing. Simply reading a word such as “toxic” sends a person into alert mode. Syntax has a similar effect. Relatively short sentences like “It is not the job of the protesters to draft legislation” add power to the author’s words. Since the reader already trusts the author based on the previously established tone, there is no disagreement: the government is not doing its job properly.
There is no question that the author of this article is convincing. The question is, why? Without thinking about it, after only on reading of the passage, we trust and agree with the author. This is due to a combination of several techniques on two levels. First, details work to convey an intelligent and confidence-inspiring tone. Then, the tone combines with diction and syntax to make the reader believe in the author’s message: it is time for change.
I agree with all of the words that you have chosen. Any time I see the word toxic I can immediately understand how an author wants his piece to be read. I think the strongest part of your response was your conclusion paragraph. You did a nice job of tying up the authors point and the methods in which he got his point accross without merely summarizing your entire response. Well done!
ReplyDelete