I was very pleased to find a politically centered article in the edition of The New Yorker that I was assigned to analyze. I was fascinated by the extremely positive slant the article took to discuss Senator Barak Obama’s policies, agenda, and personal character. The statements made in this article pass themselves off quite well as absolute truths. It would be very easy to skip merrily along without pausing to question what’s behind all the literary pomp and sparkly adjectives. Throughout the whole article I was hard pressed to find a single negative jab to Obama’s character. The author references both Lincoln and Churchill in her very enthusiastic portrayal of the Senator’s virtues. She even uses the first full page to share a cheerful anecdote that is meant to make the very best attributes of Obama’s personality shine blindingly out at the reader. Now, having read the article in its entirety, I uttery convinced of the perils of reading an article for face value, with no interest for what is going on behind the scenes.
A great deal of what is valuable in any literary work is what’s said between the lines and behind the obvious implications of the piece. The piece on Obama is no exception to this rule. With a careful mind on her choice of diction and a good deal of structural maneuvering, the author manages to turn several would be insults, into highly desirable qualities, especially for a presidential candidate. For instance, many have observed that Senator Obama does not appear to be very astute in all the minute and nitty-gritty details of his campaign, his opponents, his country, and every hot-button political issue since the beginning of time and space. While afore mentioned opponents have used Obama’s lack of encyclopedic knowledge to discredit him, the author of this article turns the tables on the issue. She claims that Obama is not an ostentatious person, and does not wish to project a snobbish, know-it-all persona. I am left wondering; does this idyllic desciption of a politician have any basis at all, or is it just an act, staged theatrics made up to appeal to those with money and the power to vote?
For all those who have suffered through my above histrionics:
Please feel free to comment, question, challenge, and contradict. I am however looking forward to learning what my political views appear to be based on these two paragraphs. So please share. For the truth, simply ask, and I will divulge.
Jeanne
4 comments:
i enjoyed how in the first paragraph you pointed out a very good psychological point in the article about how people will tell you things to lead you more in one direction and to control your ideas and opinions by throwing the information that is only told to us
I enjoyed your entry. Next time try to engage a bit more directly with the article's tools, that is, the very specific examples of where the author indicates his or her feelings/tone towards the subject. Overall, though, nice work.
And what are your political beliefs?
Hey..I'm from the 9:40 class.
*waves*
Anyway, I've been browsing through your classes blogs and this entry particularly stood out to me so I thought I'd comment. The "literary pomp and sparkly adjectives" you mentioned are precisely the reason I cannot bear to read most politically-centric and/or unbiased writing. I enjoyed reading your opinion, although I must admit I would have blanched at the sight of such an atrocity of writing and flipped the page.
I kind of like the way you tend to use big word and point out the factors in the article. Your ideas were nicely told
Post a Comment