Karen Garrison’s “To Heal the Earth, Put Plastic in it’s Place” is a strong piece that forces the reader to make a change. Garrison uses many of the techniques that we are learning to incite her readers to recycle and reduce plastic materials.
One reason I believe her piece is strong is due to her elevated diction; because she keeps her words formal her argument is taken seriously. Garrison uses words such as “proliferation” and “Polystyrene” to show that her opinion is based on facts and research.
Her elevated diction and syntax help to keep her tone serious; she wants people to understand the impact of plastic and to use less “single-use” plastic items. In order to achieve this tone she uses short, forceful sentences, “But they cannot stem the tide of plastic pollution.” Also she keeps her article in present tense writing about how plastic “kills” wildlife making the issue urgent.
Topping off her strong editorial is her relevant details. She only uses the information that is useful, leaving out details about the “coastal cleanups” and sharing information about CalRecycle’s hard-hitting prediction on wasted plastic.
Karen Garrison has inspired me to use less plastic and I believe that this article inspires others as well. She chose great words, sentence structure, and information to affect her readers logically so they will change the world.
Great job, Ana! Your examples of how Garrison uses diction, syntax, and details were very relevant, and overall your piece was short but quite functional.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that's the main thing I noticed with your post: its length. I've seen how you think in class, and yes, your examples above are AP-quality. I would just like to see more of everything, because I know you can go into more detail.
For example, you could explain more about how elevated diction helps Garrison's point. Here's what I might say: "Not only does she want to be taken more seriously, but by using more academic words she wants the reader to connect the article to a scholarly paper." You can explore the reader's association with elevated words, or what Garrison assumes about her audience (which will lead you to speculation on who exactly Garrison hopes reads her article), or you can go in some other direction. Doing so is very much in your ability, and I think it would bump up the quality of your analyses more than a few notches.
This same idea can be applied to your syntax and details section, I think. By exploring exactly what effects each of the author's choices about DIDLS have on the meaning of the piece, I know you can take this post to a very high AP level.
Keep up the good work!
Curtis
Okay, seeing my words in flowery font is pretty disorienting. And funny. :)
DeleteAna,
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job providing quotes to support your point also your analysis of how diction and syntax impacted the article overall. Despite the length, I could see that you had a grasp of analyzing the text but for next time, I would try to write more just so readers can have a more in-depth insight into your thinking. The only thing I would disagree with is the diction of the article. You said "One reason I believe her piece is strong is due to her elevated diction; because she keeps her words formal her argument is taken seriously. Garrison uses words such as “proliferation” and “Polystyrene” to show that her opinion is based on facts and research." As I read the article I noticed that the author did not use elevated diction. The author used everyday diction to make sure her readers properly understood the urgency of her message. Using elevated language would have confused the readers and distracted them from the main point of the article. Other than that, I believe you did a great job with your analysis.