Thursday, August 30, 2012
Gerard Jones Critical Analysis
Gerard Jones's general subject is violent media is good for children. The purpose of presenting this argument was to suggest that children should not smother their feelings of violence but rather they should be able to feel what they feel without suppression from adults. Jones's position is violence in comics, movie, music, and other media is good for children; he also feels that adults should not try to protect children from their own feelings. Most of the author's argument is backed up by situations he has experienced and his opinion. He and his daughter developed a program to help children channel their feelings into combative storytelling. The author uses personal stories as evidence to support his argument. The evidence appeals to the reader's emotion, mainly making the reader feel for the people involved in the situation. In this paper there is enough evidence to support the author's assumptions. Jones presents the opposing idea that violence is harmful and responds in a way that gives leeway to the fact that violent media is harmful and in some cases has caused real-world violence, but refutes that this type of entertainment has helped more people than it has hurt. The author seems to be addressing parents or adults working with children. Jones sees the audience as a neutral party which is supported by the fact that his writing is a little more laid back than that of a serious discussion. The writer seems fair, reasonable, and knowledgeable because he gives the opposing opinion and refutes it in a way that he supports a portion of the idea but not the entire argument. He also provides person experiences for support. Jones is most definitely leans toward one side but he show the argument is not one sided; because of this the argument is more effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree to most of what you said about the article and I also see why you said what you did. I’m not sure if you saw that in the article that he says that what he does doesn’t always help the children but that it helps a good amount of them. I also think that it’s not all about his opinion. He probably asked other people what they thought before writing the article. I do think that some of the article is based off his opinion. I can see the good and bad of the article but, it only my thoughts that make it that way. I see why people wouldn’t think what he does is a good thing but, I can also see how some people think it is good.
ReplyDeleteThe article was really interesting to me. I believe that not all children are the same so not every child lets out anger or aggression the same. Some need to be taken to a "happy place" full of clouds and rainbows, while others need to watch something violent to channel out their anger instead of taking it out on something or someone. I do believe that he based his argument more-so on his opinion and not facts like statistics. If he would have done so he most likely would have a stronger argument.
ReplyDeleteWhitney, I agree with you about his argument. By adding statistics or more factual evidence to support his claims would have made his argument much stronger. I also agree that every child is different and have different needs. FKelley, I did see what he said about helping a good amount of children but, that goes back to the fact that every child is different and some may need another type of activity to deal with their anger and feelings. The writer did a good job of showing both side's of the argument which absolutely helped out his credibility. Also, the other sides arguments showed diversity in opinions and helped to incorporate a more diverse audience.
Delete