The Reader and Writer
Getting our future back on the rails- slowly
In the newsletter, ‘Getting our future back on the rails- slowly’, that was received by households in the local area; the writer emphasizes the need for change and promotes the idea of sustainable living through community action. The direct, persistent tone serves to assert the notion that the community would greatly benefit by a shared garden. The proposal contains 3 images of which all support the writer’s philosophy. Commonly, all are directed to the reader through techniques of fear tactics and consistent use of hyperbole. The newsletter aims to persuade readers through tactics of: appealing to sense of security, use of evidence and involvement of readers through inclusive language. The writer begins with the second word ‘our’ to immediately create a sense of belonging. This benevolent attitude is evident throughout the article by the simple repetition of ‘we’, ‘our’, and ‘us’- targeting to appeal to our sense of community. The writer’s aim is to involve the reader directly in the debate by assuming that they agree with the proposal: putting them in a position of not becoming innocent bystanders. It even strategically involves those not knowing there was a situation to begin with and subliminally creating divisions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in minds. By repeatedly using the word ‘our’, the writer is positioning the reader to feel included in the sense of duty required of themselves and their fellow residents.
The use of inclusive language reinforces the need for solidarity amongst the townspeople in order to achieve the shared desire of harvesting a communal garden.
The writer further outlines the duty required of the readers and the possible future harms that could arise from not having a community garden. It suggests that gardens could potentially save lives; teaching the ways of growing food and feeding one another. The writer works on undermining the reader’s sense of security by claiming that
In the newsletter, ‘Getting our future back on the rails- slowly’, that was received by households in the local area; the writer emphasizes the need for change and promotes the idea of sustainable living through community action. The direct, persistent tone serves to assert the notion that the community would greatly benefit by a shared garden. The proposal contains 3 images of which all support the writer’s philosophy. Commonly, all are directed to the reader through techniques of fear tactics and consistent use of hyperbole. The newsletter aims to persuade readers through tactics of: appealing to sense of security, use of evidence and involvement of readers through inclusive language. The writer begins with the second word ‘our’ to immediately create a sense of belonging. This benevolent attitude is evident throughout the article by the simple repetition of ‘we’, ‘our’, and ‘us’- targeting to appeal to our sense of community. The writer’s aim is to involve the reader directly in the debate by assuming that they agree with the proposal: putting them in a position of not becoming innocent bystanders. It even strategically involves those not knowing there was a situation to begin with and subliminally creating divisions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in minds. By repeatedly using the word ‘our’, the writer is positioning the reader to feel included in the sense of duty required of themselves and their fellow residents.
The use of inclusive language reinforces the need for solidarity amongst the townspeople in order to achieve the shared desire of harvesting a communal garden.
The writer further outlines the duty required of the readers and the possible future harms that could arise from not having a community garden. It suggests that gardens could potentially save lives; teaching the ways of growing food and feeding one another. The writer works on undermining the reader’s sense of security by claiming that