http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147524440
In
the article "Bryan Fischer: We have
forgotten God. Thats why all this has happened," Bryan Fischer argues that
the separation of church from state is the root of America’s problems. In other words,
he believes that prohibiting prayer in our public schools system led to
increased homicide, rape, etc. While he uses diction and details to create this
meaning, his use of syntax is extremely detrimental to his goal in this article.
Fischer
is very careful with the details he chooses to include. His whole article, in
fact, only focuses on how the United States is worse off as a society now then
it was in 1962 (when compulsory school prayer was declared illegal). According to Fischer,
“SAT scores began to plummet almost immediately” and “the rate at which teens
were arrested for rape…and murder shot through the roof.” He also claims that
the “nuclear family is breaking apart” and that the “sexual and physical abuse
of children is out of control.” Obviously, these details are playing on
people’s emotions. Of course no one is happy about increased murder rates, or
happy that sexual abuse of children is apparently on the rise. Fischer uses
these to his advantage because while scaring people, he also provides a
solution (re-starting organized school prayer). When people are scared, or the
situation is desperate, as Fischer paints it to be, history shows us (just look
at the Nazis) that people are more likely to look towards extreme solutions.
Fischer
also uses strong diction to strike fear in the hearts of readers. For example,
teen births have “skyrocket[ted]” and school violence is “shooting through the
ceiling.” These words make it seem like these issues are extremely out of
control, doesn’t it? On top of that, he chooses scary, colorful words like
“massacres”, “catastrophic” and “destroyed”. This word choice certainly makes
our nation seem like a dangerous, scary place. Whether our current situation is "catastrophic" or not, Fischer makes sure to associate colorful words such as this with our nation. This is a scary thought, which could make readers more likely to accept Fischer's message as the solution to our problems.
The overly wordy sentence
structures in the article detract from the meaning that Fischer is trying to
create. For example, the article opens with: “The quote that serves as the title
of this column was spoken by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, who had witnessed the
horrible and devastating consequences in the life of a nation that turned its
back on God.” There are some shorter sentences throughout the article; however,
the majority are long, wordy sentences.
This detracts from the message of the article because it’s too hard to
maintain interest and remember what the sentence was saying by the time you
finish reading it. The syntax makes the issue seem very boring and unimportant.
Overall,
Fischer uses details and diction very much to his advantage. He chose the scariest, most horrific details and words to associate with the current state of our nation. This created a powerful message over all. However, it could have been much stronger if Fischer had thought to consider syntax.
I see how he makes events seem scary and catastrophic, and the techniques he uses are clear throughout your response. You supported your thesis very well, and gave solid evidence. However, I was just a little confused about the article itself. How did he use the scary ideas to support his own thesis? All you talked about was that he makes events seem horrific, but why?
ReplyDeleteOther than that, this was a very well-written and developed essay.
Haley, I like the article you chose. Even in the title you can see how he is playing to the people. "we forgot god, thats why all this happened". He is giving people a reason for all the bad things in the world and a easy solution. I think you did a great job of illustrating how the author used diction, syntax, and details to prove his point. He only includes the details of bad things happening in the world right now and connects it to prayer being illegal at schools. He doesn't mention any other events that could have happened around that time because it would take away from his point. The diction he uses as you pointed out makes it sound as if with the separation of church and state the world is in a frenzy! Overall I think you did a very good job and I don't see much wrong with the blog other than I wish you had told more about what exactly the author of the article was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have a strong grasp on DIDLS, and definitely know how to pinpoint aspects of the article and use it to your advantage. A comment would be that with the third body paragraph, I thought you were just continuing with diction until I reached the last sentence. (Although looking back, you saying "The overly wordy sentence structures..." probably should have clued me in.)
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting article, and it makes me question what prompted the author to explore that topic, and I think it'd be interesting to further explore his motive. I'd have to agree with Morgan and Isha - because this article pulls examples from so many details it can be a little confusing for the reader to know what the article is really about.
On a final note, it can be tricky to use an author's lack of DIDLS to prove a point, but I think you explained your point quite well.