This reading didn't hold as much allure for me as the previous article, since I'm not into politics at all. I did get some useful hints about the structure of an analysis, however. Plus, some of the content held interesting ideas about history. First, Hartnett set this article up by giving plenty of context, so people like me, who don't follow politics or even a lot of history, for that matter, can understand where the article is headed and what it will talk about. Since I'm assuming my audience to not be Pinterest users, I will follow this strategy.
Hartnett also uses phrases such as: "my analysis also demonstrates", "as I will address in the epilogue to this essay", and "I proceed with the understanding that". These sort of phrases are waht I was told never to use during elementary, middle, and high school because they were too "personal" and detracted from the academic content of the article. Now, however, as I have grown through this class, I feel much more confident in using such phrases, and also recognize that saying these sort of phrases also helps to provide some sense of a disclaimer for the reader. What I mean is if I say this is my idea, then readers will know it's my analysis, and take it for what it's worth. So I thought that was cool.
He also described how he would do the analysis, saying it "unfolds in three steps". I like this as well because it gives a clear idea of direction to the user. Throughout the article, Hartnett also gives more context information, as well as historical context as it relates to the current topic at hand. I like that. He also talks about the good and the bad of the situation, which helps to remove bias and strengthen the overall argument by rhetorically challenging the user to see what he sees.
Like the previous article, this one also uses headings. I think I'll keep mine in my paper so the reader will have manageable chunks of information, as well as direction as to what the next chunk is and how it relates. I've noticed that as a reader, I like the headings. I also found his vocabulary to be inspiring, as he uses words such as "dovetails" on page 425 near the bottom of the first paragraph. I think that adding words such as these, the article as a whole gains another dimension, because no matter how small such a thing as vocabulary seems, it gives a different feel to the text, and I like that.
He also addresses the reader in his analysis, saying "readers should recall". This stood out to me because he's bringing us in with the information and making it personal to us. I thought that was a good strategy. The last thing I want to mention is his epilogue. He takes all the ideas and rants throughout the paper and ties it all together, bringing it back to the main point of the article. I think this is the part I may struggle with most with my analysis, so I enjoyed reading his and seeing how he did it.
excellent job picking up on the form of the article! :)
ReplyDelete