http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/16/china-sees-the-best-and-worst-of-america-in-boston-bombing/
This article doesn't have the strongest voice, I'm sure I could have found articles that had stronger ones. But I wanted to analyze this article's voice mainly because the voice is unique in that it partially represents a voice we don't often see. The author uses colloquial diction, well-used imagery, and focused details to provide a unique outlook on an American tragedy. Unique, because the perspective isn't an American one.
This article is meant to be read by the average person, so it's most fitting that the words used be simpler. "Reverently" is about as challenging as it gets. And when there are words that might be harder to understand (usually Chinese terms), the author goes out of his way to explain them to readers. More educated readers may already know what Weibo is. But to make the article more accessible, since Weibo is mentioned so frequently, the author makes sure to let the readers know that it's "China's massive social media service".
The author uses imagery to enhance the description of China's perspective to the American tragedy. He at one point describes it as "somewhat rosy", adding a color to the dimension. It's just a soft red, but it implies fondness, comfort, admiration. However, the best use of imagery doesn't come from the author of the article, it comes from the Chinese netizens that the author chooses to cite. This ties into detail since it was the author after all that chose to include the quotes, but I'll touch on that later. The Chinese web users use imagery to compare and contrast the response of the US government to that of their own government during similar crises. One user paints a picture of the local police holding a press conference immediately, the public getting involved and helping the runners, and contact information being spread. Through the words, we can see these events play out, only to watch them evaporate when the user compares it to the Chinese reaction to similar events (no reporting until at least six hours after the event, no unity in relief effort).
But what's most probably most important in this article is the use of detail. The voice of this article wouldn't be nearly as compelling and intriguing if the author hadn't picked his details out as well as he did. The author takes an are where not many are too well informed, and does well to present both sides. The Chinese quotes he chooses are all very intellectual and smart comments. There are probably uneducated comments as there are anywhere on the Internet, but that's not the best way to present perspective, so the author does well in his choice of comments. I mentioned a comment earlier where the Chinese web user looks fondly upon the US reaction, but the author contrasts that with an alternative perspective that looks more fondly on China, pointing out how the stricter Chinese security would have prevented such an incident in the first place.
The voice isn't strong in that the author is strongly opinionated one way or another, but I believe it has a strong "smart" voice. The author is presenting unique perspectives that we don't often learn about, and the author does a very good job at delivering that information. And the author effectively uses diction, imagery and detail to do this.
Solid work, Kevin! I will agree with you that the voice in this article was deliberately not very unique and personal. You do a good job of identifying aspects of the voice that the author does adopt, but one thing I might expand on if I were you would be for your discussion of why the author tried to stay away from leaning too far in a certain direction. Something that helps me when I tackle questions like these is simply imagining the effect that the change would have: in this case, imagine how the article would read if the author had decided to deliver the information in an opinionated way. You did touch on the author's lack of a strong voice twice, but you sort of stopped at "and he did it well." Just a little more on that would be great!
ReplyDeleteAlso related to the idea of different perspectives is the Laura Bohannan article ("Shakespeare in the Bush"). Our colleagues are currently debating the value of having different perspectives in that particular Google forum, and while I know that you wrote this blog post long before we were assigned to write a personal reflection on "Shakespeare in the Bush," I think a brief connection to "China sees..." would be perfect for your "Shakespeare" post.
Great job!
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI think you pointed out a very valid point about details that we don’t touch on as often despite how often it is used in articles and essays, quotations. You put in that the specific quotations the author used were pertinent to how each side was portrayed as “there are probably uneducated comments as there are anywhere on the Internet” yet the author of this article specifically sought out intelligent comments from each side to provide a more balanced view of the different ways of approaching similar tragedies. I also thought it was interesting that you chose an article from a highly regulated source such as the Washington Post, which no doubt has its own specific style guide that squashes the strong voices we hear in our other typical article sources for this class, such as Slate. By examining the lack of a strong voice you brought up some good points about how to a strong voice is created, or not.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteGreat job on your close reading. Your attention to diction, imagery and detail with your supporting evidence made the close reading really strong. Though I do have a few suggestions for your blog, you said that the author used colloquial diction and you gave a brief description made it how it made it easier for everyone to read. To have made it more solid, you could have talked about WHY the author may have chosen colloquial diction for that article and HOW it affected the article as a whole. Also I would just add in more textual evidence, but other than that, keep up the good work!