Why Men Aren't Really Men Anymore
(Article by Paul Hudson)
http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/why-men-arent-really-men-anymore/
This article by Paul Hudson serves to shame the men of our society, and he does this by using whimsical syntax, crude and demeaning diction, and catchy language techniques.
The very first line of this article reads "There was once a time when men used to be real men." This is sort of hilarious, because his syntax is modeled after that of a fairytale, as if it's now only a magical story that men used to be upstanding and strong individuals. He also ends with "there aren’t many of us, but we’re survivors and will be around for a while," to continue with the story-book effect. Using this technique, Hudson suggests that it's simply not realistic to hold most men today to the same standards we used to.
The next technique used is diction. Very hard, insulting, inappropriate diction. He replaces the word "men" with substitutions such as "boys," "pansies," and other names that are too crude for me to quote. Insults like these show how Hudson has no respect at all for the males of today
The third thing Hudson does is to use fun language techniques such as parallelism and alliterations, to make his ideas easy to remember and repeat. For example, he says "Generation-Y is the instant gratification generation. We want what we want right at the moment we figure out that we want it." The clever use of both alliteration and parallel structure make his idea stand out, and make it more memorable.
Between his humorous syntax, vulgar diction, and memorable language, Hudson slanders men, exposing them as weak, selfish creatures. His disappointment in his gender could not be felt any deeper.
Mary, right from the start I enjoy your descriptiveness used to describe the different types of rhetoric. Just from your first sentence I can already tell that Hudson’s writing is original and somewhat patronizing. When you mention that his syntax is like a fairy tale because men are no longer ‘real men.’ How did you come to the conclusion that a real man is “upstanding and strong”? Did it directly define men as that in the article or is that a conclusion you decided? I completely agree though! I do feel that is what our society usually depicts as a ‘real man.’ I like how you in a way typed the syntax as fairy tale styled. Do you think Hudson was aiming to reach to a certain kind of audience when using this technique? Overall though Mary this is a great Close Reading, you did a great job of not only noticing the different techniques Hudson used but also tied them all together very well in order to get the base meaning of Hudson’s article.
ReplyDeleteMary,
ReplyDeleteIt was key to hit on the syntax, diction, and language in Hudson’s article. Those three techniques definitely stood out to me while I read it. However, I find the meaning of it to be more against the internet than making fun of men. It also has such an angry, arrogant tone to it that I think could have helped your argument. The parallel that you found to fairy tales went right over my head, but after reading it, that’s exactly the point that Hudson was trying to make. He wanted it to sound like “real men” are fantasy creatures. I wish you could have elaborated more on the diction, while I understand that the other terms he used were inappropriate, I think you could have pointed out how absolute his words were. There were no shades of grey in this article, it was all-or-nothing. His language was very playful, which to me, created the effect of a passive-aggressive tone, making fun of the situation while also being enraged by it at the same time. This was a great article to pick because of its strong voice and I just wish your argument went a bit deeper.
Mary--You've got some great comments from your peer reviewers, here--I agree with them that you have created an excellent argument that could use just a touch more depth.
ReplyDelete