The article in the link (above) was published as straight news. But I really wanted to use it so take what I say with a liberal spoonful of salt.
DIDLS can be applied to straight news. We were told it was a bad idea, and it was a trial, but of course I managed to do it. Looking at the article in question, it could possibly be thought that the author might have maybe editorialized a tiny bit- basing my post on a study of diction, structure, and details.
First comes diction. The words the author uses drives the point home by... well. being really good. Take the first paragraph, the lead.
"Ocean scientists are working to keep afloat a 16-year-old U.S. competition aimed at encouraging young people to appreciate marine research and join their field."
"Ocean scientists are working to keep afloat a 16-year-old U.S. competition aimed at encouraging young people to appreciate marine research and join their field."
Now read it again. Pretty doggone clever, right? I chose a great lead to analyze! An article about a struggling oceanography competition, and they use the word "afloat". Like in water and stuff. and later on in the same paragraph- go read it for yourself- the author uses the word "scramble". Like EGGS? Like fish eggs? Is it a stretch? I don't know- how do eggs come out of a fish? They're squeezed out! Look back in the same sentence for that word! The same way the squeezing comes before the scrambling! Is it a coincidence? Am I crazy? Does the author actually mean for all this to matter? Aren't we supposed to not care? The author always means everything we think they do. That's straight outa Week 4. I could also tell you the author is a female and probably blonde, judging by her style. Don't believe me? Go see for yourself. By the way, crazy thing about fish eggs? Most of them float. Just like NOSB is trying to do.
Next, structure. The author does an acceptable job of varying sentence length, which maintains the reader's interest. The author also does neat work when it comes to paragraph length. Cut off at just the right time and place, each paragraph is succinctly finished. The thoughts that come through the reader's mind in the space between each paragraph are attributes to this article's profoundness. Try rereading the end of paragraph and pausing when finished. Think about the given statistic. That is a sad fact. Now go on. And do the same for each final period after- stop and think about what the writer is trying to say in those one line spaces between each phrase. I really chose structurally strong article, didn't I.
(This last a picky aspect, and the only reason I'm mentioning it is because I'm having trouble coming up with other areas of this article to create. But I guess you could say that goes for this entire post.)
One fact that the article does not explain is the reason for recent funding cuts. With the aid of details (a part of which being what the author does not say), the article is leaning toward helplessness on the National Ocean Science Bowls' part.
"...federal budget cuts are putting a squeeze on the effort..." (Paragraph 1)
" ...the automatic 2013 budget cuts known as the sequester slashed education funding at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOSB’s main financial supporter." (Paragraph 3)
These quotes indicate that NOSB is on the chopping block- and while there is no question about that, there is no explanation as to why, other than general funding cuts. This kind of pits the reader against the government and the budget cuts, only revealing how they have effected the organization itself without the cause of the cuts.
Not a big deal at all. The article, only slightly flawed, did an excellent job of bringing attention to the minor yet resounding effects of federal budget cuts. Small organizations (and large ones) are suddenly caught without their former one major source of income. Though a little slanted, the author does a good job of providing news of change within a surprisingly widespread effort and gateway for young enthusiasts.
Man, did I choose a great article or what.
Next, structure. The author does an acceptable job of varying sentence length, which maintains the reader's interest. The author also does neat work when it comes to paragraph length. Cut off at just the right time and place, each paragraph is succinctly finished. The thoughts that come through the reader's mind in the space between each paragraph are attributes to this article's profoundness. Try rereading the end of paragraph and pausing when finished. Think about the given statistic. That is a sad fact. Now go on. And do the same for each final period after- stop and think about what the writer is trying to say in those one line spaces between each phrase. I really chose structurally strong article, didn't I.
(This last a picky aspect, and the only reason I'm mentioning it is because I'm having trouble coming up with other areas of this article to create. But I guess you could say that goes for this entire post.)
One fact that the article does not explain is the reason for recent funding cuts. With the aid of details (a part of which being what the author does not say), the article is leaning toward helplessness on the National Ocean Science Bowls' part.
"...federal budget cuts are putting a squeeze on the effort..." (Paragraph 1)
" ...the automatic 2013 budget cuts known as the sequester slashed education funding at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOSB’s main financial supporter." (Paragraph 3)
These quotes indicate that NOSB is on the chopping block- and while there is no question about that, there is no explanation as to why, other than general funding cuts. This kind of pits the reader against the government and the budget cuts, only revealing how they have effected the organization itself without the cause of the cuts.
Not a big deal at all. The article, only slightly flawed, did an excellent job of bringing attention to the minor yet resounding effects of federal budget cuts. Small organizations (and large ones) are suddenly caught without their former one major source of income. Though a little slanted, the author does a good job of providing news of change within a surprisingly widespread effort and gateway for young enthusiasts.
Man, did I choose a great article or what.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I normally don't think analyses/close-readings should be written as a narrative, but you did really well with it and your use of the technique was super effective. However, I think that you should have used more examples for each of the elements of DIDLS that you chose to discuss. Furthermore, I think that, if you did choose to only discuss one example, you should apply a more detailed analysis to it. Simply saying "Look at that; I bet it means something" is not really a sufficient analysis. Furthermore, when you're writing close readings in the future, I suggesting considering what the author is trying to say through their use of the elements of DIDLS. Basically, even when you're not writing about theme, you're writing about theme.
-Andi
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteInteresting choice deciding to analyze Darby's article... Anyways, you did a nice job considering that it is a news article, but I'm not sure if it was the best choice for the sake of practicing close reading. Contrary to Andi, I think you have sufficient evidence for most of your points- details are certainly sufficient, and syntax if also well fleshed out as syntax goes- but remember the S is syntax, not structure, although I may be misremembering.
In terms of your technique, the narrative approach did make it more interesting, but if you are trying to sway someone towards your point I think it was actually less effective, in large part because it makes your specific bias very clear. It works well with friends, but it may come off as unprofessional in a more formal setting.
~Erik
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the late post Google was having trouble last night. to start I commend you on your article choice as it was a little unconventional although it certainly had that strong voice that's necessary for this assignment. Your analysis was solid in all aspects with you even admitting a few flaws in the article. You did a good job but I might suggest a slightly more formal tone.....or perhaps a SLIGHTLY less pompous last line hahaha.
-Andrew
Jason--I'm afraid that this article may have been a risk not worth taking, in the end, because it doesn't seem to have led to a productive result. Andi is spot-on with her review of this post, and yet I don't see a revision. Look again at the assignment criteria--you need a thesis that makes a claim about how techniques create a specific meaning, and here, you have no thesis at all. Then you need a formal academic argument to back that thesis up, not an informal narrative about your experience of reading/thinking about/analyzing the piece. Have a look a several other people's Close Reading posts to get a sense of what we're aiming for, here, okay?
ReplyDelete