http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/
Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people
Eric Garland may be incredibly snarky in his article, "Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people," but he couldn't have achieved this without his extensive use of DIDLS: diction, imagery, details, language, and syntax.
Garland's most notable use of literary techniques comes through his syntax, which he uses both to emphasize his own status and then to explain why it doesn't matter. "Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> Howard Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND," Garland says of his family lineage. By tracing back to famous and revered groups/people and even kings, he emphasizes the family's "extraordinary" standing. It's something that merits a good exclamation of "HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!!" in Garland's opinion. This is another piece of syntax that mocks society's emphasis on white people, that they have become holy, people of such significance that they are kings and superheroes. And, after revealing his outstanding credentials of intelligence, wealth, and lineage, he drops the bomb: he voted for Obama. "B-b-but, what?" Garland asks, showing the lack of confidence that according to him, Republicans should feel regarding their policies.
Because people like him should be "Low Hanging Fruit," or easy pickings, ripe and full to burst of confidence in the future--but like fruit, people like him are being eaten up, chewed up and spit out. With his diction, Garland takes things even further. Throughout the article, Garland uses phrases like "you guys" and "the Republican Party," distancing himself and his family from people he can no longer understand, but in fact holds in contempt. "You guys suck at running wars," Garland says. "That Iraq thing" isn't the only thing he expresses disillusionment over, however. Due to her profession, "...my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits." The emphasis on working stills any arguments that if Americans weren't so lazy they could have afforded health care. The fact is, Romney's 47% are the same people Garland's wife has to watch show up in the ER, day after day. They are working people, as Garland points out, but that doesn't make them rich, doesn't guarantee them health care under the Republican system. These policies are certainly something to go "Egads" over, especially considering their childish and therefore irresponsible lack of commitment to actually cutting spending like they said they would.
Lastly, Garland uses images to bring the Republican Party into new perspective. As Garland says, "The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung." Bringing in images of pigs, dung, and troughs forces readers to confront what Garland is getting at: that Republicans are lower than the meanest of animals, and must grub for ideas so disgusting that they're akin to pig dung.
This is a really good article and you picked it apart well. The author of the article seems to have a good voice and I think you conveyed it well in your analysis. I don't have much more to say, so keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job bringing different parts of the article to lights. One thing that might help is, at the beginning of the article, stating WHAT he's actually trying to express - maybe just a quick, clarifying sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe first paragraph was clearly syntax, the second paragraph covered ...syntax and diction? And your third/final paragraph was quick reference to imagery. The only thing I would work would be maybe adding a little more the imagery paragraph. In comparison to the other thought-out paragraphs it seems a little short. Maybe tie everything together with a final conclusion?
Great job pulling examples from the article!