“Invisibility
Cloak” Actually Just a Box
By: Will
Oremus
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/08/invisibility_cloak_baile_zhang_makes_teddy_bear_disappear_in_box_but_not.html
\Will Oremus’s
“Invisibility Cloak” Actually Just a Box
implies that the way the discovery is being perceived, is absurd. The author
uses many techniques such as diction, language, and imagery to make it clear
that the “invisibility cloak” that has been made is not such a great thing
after all.
The way the
author uses diction helps to emphasize his point and create a mocking tone. The
very first thing you read, the title has an example of this. When Oremus uses
the word “actually” it makes the reader already have a strong sense of sarcasm
toward the piece. Later when talking about the device he says, “utterly useless”
making it obvious that the author has a strong opinion about the new device. Oremus
using less sophisticated words and false words says, “light-bendy” and “prism-y
thing” to further the idea of a mocking tone in the article. The diction in the
piece helps to identify the meaning that the “invisibility cloak” is not a very
grand discovery.
The language
in the article suggests that Oremus does not think that the new discovery of
the “invisibility cloak” is being perceived correctly. When Oremus says, “But
hey, if you really do believe that the device in the video below can make a
teddy bear disappear, I may know a guy who’s got a transmogrifier to sell you” he
is obviously mocking the device because there is no such thing as a “transmogrifier”.
By saying this he is creating a casual sarcastic tone that sways the reader
into thinking that the device (just a complicated prism) really is not that
great. Oremus also says, “A bona fide, Harry Potter-style invisibility cloak
is, in fact, practically impossible” which is furthering the idea that the “invisibility
cloak” one was hoping for when they saw this device on the news is not
what it
seems.
The author
uses important imagery to emphasize the meaning of the article. When Oremus
says, “Harry Potter-style invisibility cloak” it immediately makes the reader picture
a piece of fabric that makes body parts disappear. This however is not true,
the actual device is just a set of prisms that reflects the light away from the
object, and this is what the author is trying to get across by using imagery,
that the new device is not what one expected. Oremus also says, “And, unlike
horseshoes and hand grenades” he using other objects to show a comparison to
make his point stronger.
The author
is suggesting that the new discovery made about an “invisibility cloak” is not much
or one after all and should not be hyped up to be something it is not.
Good job Kate!
ReplyDeleteReading your close reading blog was rather enjoyable. I honestly did not personally read the article you wrote your blog post about, but I got a pretty great sense of what it was about just by reading your post. Okay so apparently there is a new technology that can make people disappear. Now, to me that sounds so incredibly awesome, but after reading your post I know the author of your article does not agree. In your blog post, I loved how you used lots of quotes from the article. That was very helpful in proving your points and helped me understand the article better. One suggestion I have for you however is just next time use more than just the one idea that proves your thesis, for example, saying the diction, language, and imagery were all used in a sarcastic tone. Great job!
You did a really fine job on this close reading! For some reason, I am always having a little trouble isolating examples of language usage, but I think you did a great job of pulling out some great quotes. Speaking of which, I really liked all of the evidence that you used to support your claim throughout your three analyses. I thought you also did a great job of tying back the rhetorical techniques to their effect and ultimate meaning in the piece, and there is a nice flow between your ideas that really reinforces your conclusion. The only thing that you might want to fix are a few grammar errors, but otherwise, this is a solid close reading with some good ideas. For next time, I think you might want to add a little more into your introduction because without some of the later details, I was a little lost on your arguments.
ReplyDeleteKate,
ReplyDeleteNice job! I really got the feel of the author's clear sarcasm from your quotes for diction. Those are well picked and carry power in them to make any paragraph a mockery. You did a great job of relating the different uses of DIDLS to his mocking and sarcastic tone showing your strong understanding for this article. Honestly you did a great job at hitting all the main points and it never once felt like it was dragging on as most essays do. I hope you realize how well you did I have no suggestions except to expand upon your introductory paragraph as it felt like you were not sure what you were going to write about so you just quickly wrote down an introduction. I think for a quick essay that type of introduction works but I think that you can do better just from reading the rest of this post. Overall great job, seriously not a dry spot in the post I cannot wait to read the rest of your posts!