Weather you have taken an active interest in our nations politics or not these past years, an unequivocal recurring awareness arises in which we realize that the power to shape the future of our country lies in what we have come to know as "Big money". In a recent article published within The National entitled "All the Media Money Can Buy" columnist Eric Alterman effectively argues this point through an innovative use of overwhelming statistics, esoteric imagery, a diverse range of contrasting points, a (surprisingly) strategically contradiction of an appeal to authority and an steady injection of relevant pop culture references.
Yep, I just re-read this thesaurus ridden abomination and it just screams "SUBJECTIVE DOUCHE BAG!". I need to simplify this and use way more down to earth diction. Doesn't seem to be a straight-foreward, smack you upside the head type of intro(Like I want to write). Give me some feedback and help a Bro out!
Leave comments in the section BELΩW
3 comments:
Shane,
Wrong "Weather" here. :) This IS a bit, well, "thesaurus-ridden". For instance, this: "unequivocal recurring awareness". A bit much -- I find myself reading it multiple times, trying to take it all in. This is clear: "we realize that the power to shape the future of our country lies in what we have come to know as "Big money". When you write, "The National" do you mean The Nation?
You write, "columnist Eric Alterman effectively argues this point through an innovative use of overwhelming statistics, esoteric imagery, a diverse range of contrasting points, a (surprisingly) strategically contradiction of an appeal to authority and an steady injection of relevant pop culture references." On the whole, this portion works well. "the " instead of "an" in front of "innovative"; "strategic" instead of "strategically", etc. However, how are "esoteric" imagery and "overwhelming statistics"particularly "effective"? This seeming contradiction does need to be clarified.
I think subjectivity is less of an issue that wording and syntax at this point. But you're already aware of the kind of revision you need to do here, and that's often half the battle. :)
I like the thesis, but remember this paper is in third person, you are throwing "you" and "we" that makes it first and second person.
This is true, Jessica. You CAN use "we" if it's just a general, accepted idea or fact (typically, if the statement could/might be contested by multiple people/groups, "we" doesn't work because it implicates the reader as well as the writer. Excellent point to note here, and I'll go over the "we" thing tomorrow.
Post a Comment