For my close reading this week, I read "How to Live without Irony" by Christy Wampole. The full article can be found here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/?ref=opinion.
In the article "How to Live without Irony" Christy Wampole discusses the dangers she sees in the current "ironic" lifestyle she sees in many young adults. She characterizes the ironic lifestyle as a lifestyle that avoids being genuine about anything. Some examples she gives are the tendency of young people to give gifts as jokes rather than genuine gifts, and also the existence of "hipsters". Throughout the article, Wampole argues that the ironic lifestyle is dangerous to society because it fosters empty humor, destroying sincerity about everything, and because it will leave no legacy behind for the next generation. Wampole effectively argues this with careful diction, second person syntax, and humorous imagery.
Wampole's humorous imagery in the opening few paragraphs serves to set a satirical tone for the rest of the essay. Her description of "hipsters" in the first paragraph is stereotypical and slightly humorous. She mentions "outmoded fashion" and mechanical possessions like "record players" and "fixed-gear bicycles." The descriptive language, along with the almost caricature like picture accompanying the article serves to set a humorous tone that the reader can relate to.
The main strength of the article is in Wampole's diction. All throughout the article, she uses precise language. Often this precise language seems over the top, which contributes to the humor of the article. This first appears in the first few when she uses words like "haunts" to describe the actions of "the hipster". Later she calls the hipster the "most extreme manifestation of the ironic lifestyle". By choosing big words like these to describe quite ordinary things the tone comes off as humorous and slightly mocking. It is difficult to tell exactly what the point of such inflated languages was, it seems to be trying to make a satirical criticism on the subject she is discussing. Whenever the author makes a clear or concluding statement directly to the reader, she uses much more understandable and appropriate language, like when she says "Somehow, directness has become unbearable to us."
Finally the syntax adds effect through he specific use of pronouns. In the first paragraph, she uses the the pronoun "he" to describe hipsters in general. This creates a humorous effect because it parallels the description with a scientific description of some other species, making the "hipster" seem foreign and unfamiliar. In the concluding paragraph, Wampole uses the second person "you" pronoun to make her point to the reader unmistakable. In the second to last sentence, she challenges "determine whether the ashes of irony have settled on you as well." It is a powerful and rather accusatory statement directly to the reader. However in the last sentence, she redeems it slightly by saying "it takes little effort to dust them away."
Overall the article is well written, and it brings up an interesting point. I have definitely seen the attitude Wampole is talking about, but I feel that her opinion about it is perhaps harsher and more extreme than the situation makes necessary. The final statement of the article has a particularly biting tone, and the excessive language in places comes off as somewhat pretentious. It is a good article, but it definitely could have focused more on the main point and less on making fun of hipsters.
Hmm... isnt that ironic that we did the same article?! I found it even more ironic that we compared the same ways that the author used imagery. The author clearly used imagery efficiently. My favorite line of your essay was in the last sentence of the third paragraph when you wrote, "she uses much more understandable and appropriate language". To me, this really showed me the difference in her use of diction and the targeting of her audience. Good job!
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well organized and well written essay with strong points, but I was a little confused about your thesis. You say that the author uses her diction, syntax, and imagery to show that the ironic lifestyle is dangerous to society, however some of your body paragraphs didn't fully contribute to this idea. You might want to consider adding a little more detail to do this more thoroughly. For example, while explaining the use of imagery, you might want to consider including the effect of the satirical tone set in the opening paragraph of the article, and how that added to the author's overall point. Another thing that I noticed was that there was a little bit of repetition towards the beginning of your introduction paragraph, but overall good essay.
ReplyDeleteGood essay!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, a nitpick about the thesis: the order is diction, syntax, and imagery, but you don't order your body paragraphs in such a way.
On your body paragraphs, you need better closing sentences. I feel that closing sentences should sum up the paragraph and its point, and you don't do that with yours. However, I saw some GREAT evidence in there. I especially found your point about diction as insightful.
For your conclusion, I think I would focus more on WHY the author chose to write as they did than critiquing their faults. This may be an opinion thing, however -- I think that these essays are for us to understand HOW and WHY an author creates an effect rather than why the effect is bad/good.