The following is a typical response from a student (Kelly) in Year 11.
1. Firstly, read Kelly’s response below. This is a typical example of a technique-by-technique chronological (top to bottom) “shopping style-listing” approach. (See p. 22.) The response lacks structure, shape, and depth; it is also repetitive. Plus, there are too many generic comments about “views” and “issues”.
2. Turn to pages 22 – 29 (Orange Book). Try rewriting Kelly’s response by following the tips on these pages. See if you can improve the shape/structure of the piece and minimise the repetition.
3. Above all, Kelly’s response would improve by applying a “holistic” reading. For example: Kelly should prioritise the techniques that are critical to the author’s views and main contention and show how they are related. (See pages 28-29).
For example: The author uses the real-life example of Clare Oliver to discredit the Government’s tardy response.
- Unpack the purpose and impact of the real –life example
- Group together comments relating to the Government and give a deeper portrayal
- See “word level analysis”, p. 30.: dithering; incompetent; indifferent; these words imply that the Government seems to favour big business over lives of Victorians; (especially when compared with the swift response of other states.
Also try to avoid the connecting words such as “then she goes on to..”, “following this”. This signposts a chronological approach.
Kelly’s response: “Dragging their feet”
The article ‘Dragging their feet’, published in the ‘EnglishWorks Newspaper’, is written in response to the continuous use of solariums in Victoria. The writer, Janie Martin, contends that solarium use should be banned in Victoria due to its unhealthy and pernicious effects, and supports this by utilising several emotional appeals and negative connotations. In order to directly appeal to her target audience of Victorians as well as members of the state government, Martin employs a forthright, albeit occasionally sympathetic tone to persuade the reader that….
Martin introduces the reader to her piece by including a real life example of a woman (Clare Oliver) embarking on a ‘courageous’ fight against skin cancer caused by her obsession with solariums. By including this example, the reader is forced to link solarium use with skin cancer, which causes them to perceive it as a cause-effect relationship and thus, they are inclined to think of solarium use as detrimental and even life threatening. Martin describes Oliver as being ‘courageous’ and depicts her in a positive and inspirational light. Thus, this established juxtaposition channels the reader to become more wary of the author’s viewpoint and causes the reader to perceive solariums in the same perspective as the author. Furthermore, Martin uses a compassionate tone when describing Oliver which heightens the reader’s perceived empathy for her, and also reinforces their anger towards solariums.
Following this, Martin describes the undoing of Oliver’s campaign by depicting people wanting to ‘roast themselves to death like crisp chips’. The statement describes the outcome of solarium use in a negative and confronting manner which enhances the apparent dangers pervading solarium use. By stating that people are willing to ‘roast’ themselves like ‘chips’ has a degrading connotation; it forces the reader to think of people and ‘crisp chips’ synonymously, and thus, elicits repulsion and even fear from the reader. Furthermore, the reader is forced to visualise people as being battered or burnt following solarium use and thus, it makes them more receptive to the author’s viewpoint.
The author’s credibility is enhanced by her inclusion of evidence regarding solariums in Victoria. When stating that ‘Victorians are still using 447 solarium beds’, it predisposes the reader to acknowledge the extent of solarium use in Victoria, and thus, causes them to feel pity when considering the extent of damage that entails.
Martin establishes a link between increasing solarium use with the Victorian government and states that the lack of action surrounding solarium use is due to the Victorian government’s ‘lethargic’ and ‘dithering’ response. By stating this, she depicts the Victorian government as being lazy and apathetic in regard to the damage caused by solariums, which causes the reader to feel anger towards the Victorian government, and thus, makes them more inclined to share the Martin’s viewpoint.
She ends her article by sympathetically stating ‘as if these poor victims have time’, which causes the audience to link the harmful effects of solarium use with the government’s flawed priorities, and thus, it has a cumulative effect of encouraging the reader to advocate for a ban in solarium use in Victoria.
Return to “making the transition” : other responses from students
Return to “Turn to Exercises”
Return to Orange Workbook Tasks