Eure10lang.files.wordpress.com



Dustin Rowles, I Am P---ed the F--- Off

Review of Captivity

← Focus of (and expletives in) title of piece

← Argument of value articulated in ¶1

← Connection between violent imagery and argument of value in ¶1

← Parallelism through fragments in ¶2; connects/escalates what?

← Concession in ¶3

← Parallelism through fragments in ¶3; as response to concession; connects/escalates what?

← Argument of policy articulated in ¶3

← Further concession in ¶4

← Clarification/repetition in ¶4; centered around what?

← Fragments and dashes in ¶5

← Direct address of audience in ¶6

← Comparison to Saw and My Fair Lady in ¶6

← Fragments and dashes in ¶7

← Removal of subject from fragments in ¶7

← Rhetorical question in ¶8

← Spoiler warning in ¶9; qualified how?

← Sentence structure in ¶10

← Rhetorical questions in ¶11; repetition of “Why?”; escalation at end

← Isolation of tmesis (or expletive infixation) in ¶12

← Counterargument in ¶13 [Oops! Missed a “bulls---” in ¶13. Mea culpa.]

← Cohesiveness of returning to inflecting violence on Joffe in ¶13

Overall: use of profanity; use of fragments and dashes; use of rhetorical questions; use of expletive infixation; use of parallelism; tone; balance between argument of value and argument of policy.

Dustin Rowles, Why Do We Like Horror Movies?

Review of The Final Destination

← Nature of (and verb choice in) titular rhetorical question

← Use of counterargument as opening in ¶1

← Allusion to Tropic Thunder in ¶1

← Selection of adjectives/adverbs(especially compound) in ¶1

← Rhetorical question in ¶2

← Asyndeton qualification of “something effective” in ¶2

← Segue into horror films in ¶3

← Rhetorical question in ¶3

← Dismissal of possible answers in ¶4

← Balance between King and “certain studies” in ¶5

← Logical structure of when “murder by proxy” does “offer our aggression an outlet” in ¶5

← Use of rhetorical question (“And what’s more insufferable…”) in ¶5

← Argument of fact in ¶6: why we like horror movies

← Comparison between sex and horror movies in ¶6

← Qualification of comparison in ¶7 for Final Destination movies

← Rhetorical question in ¶7

← Argument of value in ¶8 re: The Final Destination

← Simple sentences in parallel structure in ¶8

← Return to sexual analogy in ¶9 [Censored or not, still kind of offensive. Mea culpa.]

← Use of rhetorical questions as list in parenthetical aside in ¶9

← Breakdown of adjectives and adverbs in ¶10

← Final fragment and image in ¶10

Overall: responsiveness to King; accuracy of assertions into human nature; use of logic; use of metaphor; use of counterargument; tone; balance between argument of fact and argument of value

-----------------------

Related question: In a high school setting, is it enough to censor the profanity in an argument replete with it? Should the profanity be left uncensored? What about violent imagery or sexual analogies? In general, to what extent should the material we read be modified for content?

Related question: In a high school setting, is it enough to censor the profanity in an argument replete with it? Should the profanity be left uncensored? What about violent imagery or sexual analogies? In general, to what extent should the material we read be modified for content?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download