Comparative Language Analysis feedback please- SAC soon

[xeon88]

I was wondering if anyone could give me feedback/improvements for this comparative piece? Also, how much comparison between texts is recommended? Like a couple of linking sentences or whole paragraphs? thanks 

Articles: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/25/syria-failure-of-international-community
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/14/syria-public-outrage-horrors


With the ongoing war in Syria, debate has arisen on whether the international community is doing enough to curb the raging situation. In an opinion article titled "Where is the public outrage on Syria" published in the Guardian on 15 February 2014, Jan Egeland aims at the general public, contending that there is an apparent lack of outrage and that the community should be more active with the issue. Similarly, another opinion piece written by Desmond Tutu targeted towards a similar audience, titled "Syria: the failure of our so-called international community" argues that the absence of commanding leadership among the involved foreign nations is only exacerbating the devastating situation in Syria. There is a photograph embedded in both publications which aim to support their respective article's views, presenting the point that generally not enough is being done to help the worsening situation in war-torn Syria.

With an appalled, yet moderated tone emanating throughout Egeland's piece, she criticises the lack of action from the general public. By contrasting the "outrage" witnessed from the past "Balkans and central African wars" with the indifference towards the current Syrian War, the writer elicits guilt amongst readers, specifically ones who have experienced the effects of past wars. The word "outrage" implies that there was significant uproar, and that foreign parties were actively and passively involved, whereas Egeland suggests that quite the opposite is occurring now. This invites the readership to feel guilty that their present inaction has contributed to these current "horrors" happening. Likewise, Egeland declares that the minimal efforts so far will not stop the "provocation against basic human decency" happening on "our watch". Through the use of the inclusive "our", the writer engenders a sense of responsibility in readers, who realise that foreign support needs to be increased in the future to prevent Syria's downfall, whilst blaming “our” meagre collective efforts for letting this situation slip.

To complement this build-up of discomfort evoked in the reader, Egeland points out that the continuation of the Syrian war will essentially reverse "humanitarian progress by decades". This "progress" is symbolic of the common desire of all moral beings for a more peaceful world, and has been the focus of international efforts for many years. By highlighting that this war is a threat to this precious "progress", she motivates readers to act against these atrocities, who seemingly believe that all this hope and effort should not be relinquished and wasted as a result of Syria's ruination. The author then bolsters her belief by emphatically asking "who would have thought...this war...takes more lives in every fortnight.. than in a year". The substantial difference between "every fortnight" and "a year" emphasises on the frightening scale of death in this war, providing serious shock value. As a result, Egeland stirs up outrage from the audience, because she claims that "we" are leaving these "civilians" unprotected in this humanitarian calamity, thus urging readers to act against this threat to "our" progression towards peace.

Whereas Egeland relies on a mostly controlled tone to voice her opinions, Tutu responds to the issue in a more outraged and fervent attitude, indicating that there will be more bloodshed if foreign powers do not seriously intervene. Throughout his article, Tutu conjures up vivid images of death and destruction, revealing that "water tanks are riddled with bullet holes" and "hospitals are deliberately shelled". The bombing of hospitals, places of refuge for the desperate and wounded, seemingly evokes anger and disgust in readers, who believe that these sacred safe havens should not be targets of cold-blooded brutality. Similarly to Egeland's piece, Tutu forcefully questions his readership, asking if they would allow "such carnage" and witness more "harrowing scenes of... families... crossing borders".  By incorporating distressing episodes involving victims in his provoking questions, the writer elicits pity and guilt from readers, coercing them to be "moved to act" and "heed this call" for help out of "good conscience".

Additionally, Tutu's piece delves into the reader's psychology by appealing heavily towards their moral instincts. He indicates that half of the "millions of Syrian" leaving are "children", painting the delicate picture of vulnerable, innocent children exposed to the harsh savagery of war. Likewise, the gut-wrenching revelation that the interviewed child's friends are "all dead" only adds to the cruelty. By incorporating children as victims at the forefront of the author's opening arguments, and due to the helplessness that readers associate with children, he appeals to the reader's sense of instinctive compassion. Thus, he is able probe into their moral code, influencing their thoughts based on the fact that they have an innate obligation to protect children. In conjunction with that, Tutu ends off by asserting that "we act as if their lives have less value...we have written them off...". The repetition of the inclusive "we" personalises the issue and emphasises that by failing to support them, "we" are abandoning fellow humans. This appeals to the reader's sense of equality and morality, because it prompts them to question their own conscience based on whether this lack of foreign support justifies as treating their fellow “brothers and sisters” equally or not.

Similar to the contentions of both articles, the two imbedded images aim to raise awareness of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. In the foreground of Egeland's picture, there is a medium close-up shot of an upset man holding a baby safe and a wailing boy witnessing the horrific situation. The cropped and zoomed-in nature of this image allows readers to focus on both subjects, paying particular attention to the distraught facial expressions of the two individuals. By doing this, Egeland stresses the toll that this war has taken on their individual lives, especially that of the boy, reinforcing the cruelty of the situation and also the traumatising effects it has on children. Through the depiction of this harshness, she elicits sorrow among readers, who believe these innocent civilians should not be subjected to this torture. Likewise, the man seems to be holding the baby not only out of compassion, but desperation as well, perhaps implying that he has lost everything in his life, and as such caring for the infant to fill this void. This further emphasises on the staggering personal cost, evoking pity from the audience, and causing them to sympathise with these victims.    

Tutu's image though, portrays a group of distressed children and nuns on board a truck fleeing from the fight. The foreground is dominated by these people looking despairingly at the camera- towards the viewer, suggesting that they are pleading for help, inducing guilt and pity amongst readers who believe that they have a moral obligation to aid those in need. The placement of children at the front highlights this fact, like Egeland's example, with the children’s psychological scarring due to the war seemingly reinforcing this evocation of sympathy. This suitably links in with the provocative imagery employed by Tutu, and as such urges the audience to stand up against this injustice and concur with his viewpoints. Moreover, the desolate and seemingly empty background signifies the huge scale of this issue; how it is rapidly destroying the country and its population. Tutu serves this as a stern warning to the worldwide community and his readership that if they do not act soon enough, Syria will crumble.

Overall, Egeland reasonably attempts to position readers that the public should be more active and engaged with the issue by employing provoking questions to involve the reader and focusing on engendering guilt by comparing our lack of action with the uproar of past events. By contrast, Tutu's passionate piece utilises powerful imagery of the brutality of war and appeals to the reader’s humanity, aiming to persuade them that nations and communities involved should be more proactive with their aid. The accompanying images help fortify each author's viewpoint, with their similar powerful and moving portrayals of anguishing victims emphasising the enormity of this issue. Both opinion pieces and images ultimately seek to alarm readers of the Syria's current horrendous state and call for more support, be it actively or passively, towards the cause.

[heids]

Didn't get the time to read the piece, so this is just from reading your analysis
Sorry again that you only get my terrible efforts (a second time!) but since it's been a few days since you posted and no one's responding, I'm hoping my feedback is better than nilch.  I've never done this before 

With the ongoing war in Syria, debate has arisen on whether the international community is doing enough to curb the raging situation. In an opinion article titled "Where is the public outrage on Syria" published in the Guardian on 15 February 2014, I like to just stick this in brackets: (The Guardian, 15 Febuary 2014), just makes it crisper Jan Egeland aims at the general public, contending that there is an apparent lack of outrage and that the community should be more active with the issue. Similarly, another opinion piece written by Desmond Tutu targeted towards a similar audience, titled "Syria: the failure of our so-called international community" Similarly, Desmond Tutu's opinion piece “Syria: the failure of our so-called international community” argues that.... (just more concise) argues that the absence of commanding leadership among the involved foreign nations is only exacerbating the devastating situation in Syria.  There is a photograph embedded in both publications which aim to support their respective article's views, presenting the point that generally not enough is being done to help the worsening situation in war-torn Syria. This sentence is wordy and doesn't get anything across; either don't mention the visual in the intro (but definitely later), or put it in briefly – The accompanying photographs amplify the authors' arguments that not enough is being done to help war-torn Syria's worsening situation.  I'd tend to put it in the intro if there was only 1 image, though you must briefly outline what the visual depicts, but not in a comparative like this.
About this intro: you should try to encapsulate their overall thrusts/methods of arguing/major viewpoints – i.e. you must put in tone!  Just a sentence or two comparing the different ways they attempt to persuade.

With an appalled, yet moderated tone emanating throughout from Egeland's piece, she criticises the lack of action from the general public. By contrasting the "outrage" witnessed from the past "Balkans and central African wars" with the indifference towards the current Syrian War, the writer elicits guilt amongst readers, specifically ones who have experienced the effects of past wars. The word "outrage" implies that there was significant uproar, and that foreign parties were actively and passively involved, whereas Egeland suggests that quite the opposite is occurring now. This invites the readership to feel guilty that their present inaction has contributed to these current "horrors" happening. Comparing the past with the present often aims to suggest we are going rapidly downhill – tries to shock the reader, make them feel guilty and afraid.  Likewise, Egeland declares that the minimal efforts so far will not stop the "provocation against basic human decency" happening on "our watch". This sentence purely describes, try to avoid doing this – analyse impact on audience as often as possible!  Through the use of the inclusive "our", the writer engenders a sense of responsibility in readers good , who realise that foreign support needs to be increased in the future to prevent Syria's downfall, whilst blaming “our” meagre collective efforts for letting this situation slip. The rest of this sentence isn't so good as it doesn't explain the effect on the audience – the good bit about sense of responsibility/blaming should be carried a bit further in what it makes them feel/think/do.

To complement this build-up of discomfort evoked in the reader Building on the reader's sense of guilt, Egeland points out that the continuation of the Syrian war will essentially reverse "humanitarian progress by decades". This "progress" is symbolic of the common desire of all moral beings for a more peaceful world, and has been the focus of international efforts for many years a little irrelevant.  By highlighting that this war is a threat to this precious "progress", 'she arouses dread in the reader of the great potential loss', or something like that – go more into how she makes them feel, and then how she thus tries to make them act she motivates readers to act against these atrocities, who seemingly are likely to believe that all this hope and effort should not be relinquished and wasted never use two verbs; try to find one more appropriate one as a result of Syria's ruination. The author then bolsters her belief argument by emphatically asking "who would have thought...this war...takes more lives in every fortnight.. than in a year". The substantial difference between "every fortnight" and "a year" emphasises on the frightening scale of death in this war, providing serious shock value shocking/alarming the reader / arousing the reader's dread – more formal. As a result, Egeland stirs up outrage from the audience, because she claims that "we" are leaving these "civilians" unprotected in this humanitarian calamity, thus urging readers to act against this threat to "our" progression towards peace.

Whereas Egeland relies on a mostly controlled tone to voice her opinions, Tutu responds to the issue in a more outraged and fervent attitude, indicating if it's forceful/passionate, 'indicating' doesn't seem the right word quite! that there will be more bloodshed if foreign powers do not seriously intervene. Good transition between the articles Throughout his article, Tutu conjures up vivid images of death and destruction, revealing that "water tanks are riddled with bullet holes" and "hospitals are deliberately shelled". The bombing of hospitals, places of refuge for the desperate and wounded, seemingly evokes anger and disgust in readers, who believe that these sacred safe havens should not be targets of cold-blooded brutality. This is the sort of thing that gets the marks! Love it. Similarly to Egeland's piece gramatically poor – 'Like Egeland' would be better, Tutu forcefully questions his readership, asking if they would allow "such carnage" and witness more "harrowing scenes of... families... crossing borders".  By incorporating distressing episodes involving victims in his provoking questions, the writer elicits pity and guilt from readers, coercing them to be "moved to act" and "heed this call" for help out of "good conscience".  Authors can't coerce; rather the author uses their emotions of pity, sympathy, distress, guilt, conscience-stricken-ness etc. to 'move' them 'to act' and 'heed this call', to arouse/awaken/ignite/stimulate a response.

Additionally, Tutu's piece delves into the reader's psychology by appealing heavily towards their moral instincts. He indicates that half of the "millions of Syrian" leaving are "children", painting the delicate picture of vulnerable, innocent children exposed to the harsh savagery of war. Likewise, the gut-wrenching revelation that the interviewed child's friends are "all dead" only adds to the cruelty. By incorporating children as victims at the forefront of the author's opening arguments, and due to the helplessness that readers associate with children, he appeals to the reader's sense of instinctive compassion. Thus, he is able probe into their moral code, influencing their thoughts based on the fact that they have an innate obligation to protect children.  This section is good, but could be made far more concise without 'delving into psychology', 'probing into moral code', 'influencing thoughts' etc.: 'Additionally, by presenting half of the 'millions of Syrians' leaving as 'children', coupled with the horrific revelation that the interviewed child's friends are 'all dead', Tutu appeals heavily to the reader's moral instincts and sense of instinctive compassion.  Presenting children as victims, whom the reader would perceive as helpless, innocent and vulnerable, evokes a sense of ...'.  This is also more objective – you are saying that the reader would view them as innocent, etc., rather than you stating/judging that they are innocent.
In conjunction with that this (or 'compounding on this', 'reinforcing this' – could be in same paragraph btw), Tutu ends off by asserting that "we act as if their lives have less value...we have written them off...". The repetition of the inclusive "we" personalises the issue and emphasises that by failing to support them, "we" are abandoning fellow humans. This appeals to the reader's sense of equality and morality, because it prompts them to question their own conscience based on whether this lack of foreign support justifies as treating their fellow “brothers and sisters” equally or not. 'Brothers and sisters' creates a sense of closeness to the victims...

Similar to the contentions of both articles, the two imbedded embedded, or accompanying images aim to raise awareness of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. In the foreground of Egeland's picture, there is a medium close-up shot of an upset man holding a baby safe and a wailing boy witnessing the horrific situation. The cropped and zoomed-in nature of this image allows readers to focus on both subjects, paying particular attention to the distraught facial expressions of the two individuals. By doing this, Egeland stresses the toll that this war has taken on their individual lives, especially that of the boy, reinforcing the cruelty of the situation and also the traumatising effects it has on children. Through the depiction of this harshness, she elicits sorrow distress among readers, who believe these innocent civilians should not be subjected to this torture. Likewise, the man seems to be holding the baby not only out of compassion, but desperation as well, perhaps implying that he has lost everything in his life, and as such caring for the infant to fill this void. This further emphasises on the staggering personal cost, evoking pity from the audience, and causing them to sympathise with these victims.    Make this more concise – e.g. The close-up shot of a distraught man holding a baby, with a nearby wailing boy, dominates the foreground of Egeland's image, focusing the reader's attention on their distraught facial expressions...  And skip the first sentence.  I'd discuss each image in the middle of another paragraph rather than isolating it at the end; rather than simply stating that they're 'similar to the contentions of both articles', link each image to a quote or two from the article.  You could link the usage of children as innocent vulnerable victims to the text; and note that using closeup human faces 'puts a face' on the issue, so that people can see how it really affects humans.

Tutu's image though, portrays a group of distressed children and nuns on board a truck fleeing from the fight. The foreground is dominated by these people looking despairingly at the camera- towards the viewer, suggesting that they are pleading for help, inducing guilt and pity amongst readers who believe that they have a moral obligation to aid those in need. The placement of children at the front highlights this fact, like Egeland's example, with the children’s psychological scarring due to the war seemingly reinforcing this evocation of sympathy. This suitably links in with the provocative imagery employed by Tutu, and as such urges the audience to stand up against this injustice and concur with his viewpoints. Moreover, the desolate and seemingly empty background signifies the huge scale of this issue; how it is rapidly destroying the country and its population. Tutu serves this as a stern warning to the worldwide community and his readership that if they do not act soon enough, Syria will crumble. Again concise-ness – 'Tutu's image portrays a group of distressed children and nuns fleeing on a truck, looking despairing towards the viewer...'.  However what you draw from the images is excellent.  Still try to link it with a quote to the article.

Overall, Egeland reasonably a subjective judgement, avoid it attempts to position readers that the public should be more active and engaged with the issue by employing provoking questions to involve the reader and focusing on engendering guilt by comparing our lack of action with the uproar of past events. By contrast, Tutu's more passionate piece utilises powerful imagery of the brutality of war and appeals to the reader’s humanity, aiming to persuade them that nations and communities involved should be more proactive with their aid. The accompanying images help fortify each author's viewpoint, with their similar powerful and moving portrayals of anguishing victims emphasising the enormity of this issue. Both opinion pieces and images ultimately seek to alarm readers of the Syria's current horrendous state and call for more support, be it actively or passively, towards the cause. Overall, while both Egeland and Tutu aim to position the reader to believe that nations should be more proactive with their aid, Egeland's more calm and balanced tone … contrasting with Tutu's passionate...

Again, excellent language usage; but try to be more concise throughout and spend most of the time analysing rather than describing.  Images can be analysed in the middle of other paragraphs as you get marks for closely linking them with the article.  And avoid subjective statements - like 'gut-wrenching revelation', 'innocent children' - rather, 'the reader may view them as innocent'.

In terms of comparative, I like to compare their overall thrust/tone in the intro and conclusion; but in the body paragraphs, draw more direct and specific similarities and differences (e.g. compare specific language examples).  Also suggest the different ways this may make the readers respond.  Try to make the intro and conclusion impacting, don't just say that the author argues XYZ and the images support this - anything too broad, general, and non-analytical turns examiners off

Good luck on the SAC