Annotations about the article 'Whatever happened to letters? Email just isn't the same.'

Personal tone
'I imagine his letters are...'
'I know...'

Personal experience
'I wouldn't like the love letters I wrote as a young man to be held up to public scrutiny'
'I recall writing my first...'

Examples used
He talks to Mary Wakefield
Example letter right at the end

Reference/quotation to others
Quotes 'another former lover' of Mick Jagger, as she reveals that he wrote her 'hundreds'

Rhetorical devices & elements of SCREAM3
'come to light' & 'too hard a habit to kick' & 'like blood in the veins' etc. = metaphorical language

'purple prose' & 'romantic resonance' = alliteration

'There is nothing like a letter... to convey feeling' = emotive language

'While blood comes out red and turns black as it ages, ink comes out black and fades to rusty brown' = contrastive pair

Write an article that explains why modern methods of communication are better than old ones.

PLAN

Assurance that the message was received
Letters can get lost in the post, whereas an email will not fail to send without warning you .done

Contacts (no need to write out the address each time) .done

Whole conversation in front of you
If you need to recall a number that was sent to you in email, you can just scroll up. If sent by letter, you'd have to find the write letter

Faster
Sending a text or email is much faster than communicating by pigeon .done

Send it to multiple people

Easier to organise
Clearly states the contact who sent it to you before opening an email or text, and sometimes a small section of the content of the message

PAF

P urpose- to entertain

A udience- newspaper

F ormat- article

My response:

I can't imagine how it is believed that old methods of communication are more practical than modern methods. Take emails, for example, that allow you to be assured that your message was received by the recipient. Older methods such as writing and sending a letter are much less reliable, as a letter can be lost in the posting process, whereas an email will kindly not fail to send without you being aware due to a notice.
  Modern methods such as emails, text messages and social networking sites save a lot of unneeded, horrid hassle of having to write out addresses or dial numbers each time you need to contact someone (I attempted to use an old-fashioned telephone to dial a number in the past, and found it quite unnecessary) because your past recipients are saved onto your device/account. I find this extremely time-saving and that also means that typing/writing/dialling mistakes are much less likely to be made.
  Furthermore, modern methods are much faster in the way that sending a text, email, private message, 'tweet', 'wall post,' etc. would take much less time than communicating by pigeon, as many used to. 

Write a letter to a newspaper giving your views on TV talent shows.

170 Cannerby Lane

Norwich

NR7 8NE

November 14th 2012

Dear Editor

I am writing because I believe that TV talent shows (such as the X Factor) are not worth watching and not worth the media coverage. Although many believe that they assist people in reaching their goal of fame, how long do these singing/dancing careers actually last? Where is former X Factor winner, Shane Ward, these days? Hasn't JLS become a much bigger act in the music industry than Alexandra Burke, who came first in the competition in the year 2008, whilst jumping JLS came in second place? But you pick up the phone because it tempts you. You tweet things or post statuses on Facebook, because it tempts you. You get dragged through that television screen to feel like it's you standing on that stage, because it tempts you. Stories find their way to the papers about a contestant's pet fish dying and suddenly, viewers empathise and therefore vote for them. It's a scandalous programme!
  
Furthermore, these programmes cost an astonishing amount to run  (for example, the X Factor USA will cost almost $3.5 million per episode) and they aim to find talent, whereas the majority of this time and money is spent on showing acts for viewers to laugh at. They could get the same experience if they went to their local public house on 'karaoke night' and paid only for beverages with their change. I don't understand how they could do that to the auditioners either. When they leave that stage, they feel like what they've been working for all this time was all for nothing. They're laughed at for believing they are following their dreams and their whole lives are turned upside down- and for what- entertainment? Would you find a man suddenly becoming blind entertaining?

In conclusion, I believe that TV talent shows are shown for all the wrong, ridiculous reasons. In my opinion, the viewers are much too gullible and are throwing more and more money away with each series.

Yours faithfully

Lane Taylor 

SCREAM3 - Persuasive language

S entence structure & variety

C ontrastive pairs
eg. "The garden of Eden had a population of 2. Our world has a population of 7 billion."

R epetition & rhetorical questions

E xaggeration & emotive language

A lliteration

M etaphorical language

3 *rule of 3*

Phrases to use in a letter about TV talent shows:

S

C

R
 Repetition: "It tempts you"
 Rhetorical questions: "How long do these singing careers actually last?"
E
  Emotive language: "They feel like what they've been working for all this time was all for nothing. They're laughed at for beleiving they're following their dreams and their whole lives are turned upside down."
A

M

3

More Praise

More good responses to the questions. :-)

Act 1 Scene 2: Jo and Helen.

As this part of the scene begins, Jo and Helen are both expecting to marry. However, there is a difference in their attitudes to marriage. At this point, Jo seems to be quite enthusiastic about getting married and also implies that she is quite a hopeless romantic when Helen says 'He certainly knows how to put stars in your eyes' and Jo describes Boy having 'beautiful brown eyes and gorgeous curly hair.' On the other hand, this second quote could be interpreted as sarcasm towards Helen, depending on how it is played out. Whereas Helen tells Jo 'At the time I had nothing better to do' in reply to Jo asking her 'Why did you marry him?' implying that she was not at all enthusiastic about her wedding. However I think that this is only said on the surface and that Helen is heartbroken about that marriage but is hiding her vunerability from Jo.

Jo reacts to Helen's forthcoming marriage with a lot less attitude than expected from her. The stage directions quote 'The news is received in silence' once Helen tells Jo of the wedding. This is followed by a repetion of the news and and the sarcastic comment 'What do you want me to do, laugh and throw pennies?' which shows her refusal to even feign happiness for Helen, adding to the audience's knowledge of their peculiar relationship as mother and daughter.

I have the impression that Helen hopes for a marriage that includes her being tended to and presented with gifts. I have interpreted this from the way she acts to 'PETER carrying a large bouquet and a box of chocolates.' The audience can imagine the way her face must light up as she says 'Oh look, and it's all mine!'  which enourages them to think of her as quite materialistic, although she doesn't seem to care much for the appearance of their flat.

Both Jo and Helen refer to men as 'little boys.' This reveals that their view of men is fairly negative, as they believe that they aren't as serious and/or as strong as they make out to be.

Act 1 Scene 2: Jo and Her Boyfriend

I think the reason that Boy doesn't have a name is because he's not an improtant character in the play. He is also black, probably decided by Delany to add drama, as the attitudes to the black community in the time that this play was written (the 1950s) were very different to those of today. Boy being a sailor could also add drama to the play because this would mean that he is away alot (confirmed by the quotes 'We won't have much time together' and 'My next leave? It's a long time, 6 months') and  both Boy and Jo would have a better chance of adultery.

In this scene, Jo implies that she is fond of the dark when she agrees to stay outside longer with Boy followed by 'Doesn't it get dark early? I like winter.' Boy reacts by quickly replying with 'I like it too. When it gets dark early it gives me more time for- (He kisses her.)' Jo contradicts herself by saying this, as the previous scene told us that 'You know I am' in reply to Helen asking if she's afraid of the dark. I think she may be saying different things to these different characters because she wants to spend longer with Boy, and also to reassure him of her attraction towards the colour of his dark skin.

Jo's attitude toward kissing in public isn't surprising in my opinion, as she tells Boy 'Don't do that. You're always doing it' as he kisses her. To me, this implies that Jo doesn't want to publicly show affection so that she's as unlike her mother as she can be. However, it could surprise you because she has previously not seemed to care how others see her.

I don't think Boy's proposal is serious, as the way he phrases it is not what I would imagine from a boy wanting a serious relationship. He says 'I'm a man of few words. Will you marry me?' and this suggests that he isn't very bothered about the proposal, and, from this proposal and his other words/actions during this scene, I feel that Boy is more interested in having sex with Jo more than anything. In the previous scene, Peter proposes to Helen with quite a different approach. He uses more persuasive language, such as 'You won't find anything better'; 'I'm young, good-looking and well set up';  and 'I may never ask you again' implying that Helen is much more capable of standing her ground when it comes to men, as she is likely to have had numerous experiences of (drunk) proposals, which is why she accuses Peter of this. She says 'You're drunk'. 

Jo suggests that she has no reason to like Boy when she says 'I don't know why I love you but I do,' however I think she is fooling herself into thinking that she loves him, as she replies to his asking of her mother's thoughts on their marriage with 'She's not marrying you, I am' which implies to me that Jo agrees to marry this simple and seemingly likeable man as a way of defying Helen. When Boy tells Jo to 'Say that again,' asking her to repeat her reply stating that she doesn't care if people see the two of them together, this and the quote 'You're the first girl I've met who really didn't care' insinuate that Boy likes Jo because of her tolerance for his ethnicity that he may not have experienced fully before. 

During our first viewing of the character of Boy, he has a toy car in his pocket. talks of drinking with the lads and says that women seem to have been 'born three thousand years old.' I think Delaney is trying to symbolise stereotypical male attitudes in one character here, either using it to amplify her point or to contradict it, as the majority of men are expected to act like boy but not many do. 

At this stage in the play, I don't feel that Jo and Boy will get married, however I would probably like them to because they seem good for each other  and as if they naturally/easily get along.

Act 1 Scene 1- Jo, Helen and Peter.

My first impressions of Peter are that he isn't very appreciative of women (as he tells Helen to 'Blow your nose, woman,' and the word choice of 'woman' implies that Peter sees woman as an object) and that he is very flirtatious and quite charming at some points. When Helen says 'I'm old enough to be your mother,' Peter comes back with a witty line of 'Now you know I like this mother and son relationship' which suggests that, if he sees something he would like, he chases after it.

I think he has simply tracked Helen down in order to receive sex from her, as he must be a regular customer (Jo asking 'What's this one called?' suggests this) and Peter approaches Helen and compliments her on this factor by saying 'darling, you do it so well.'

In the first moments after Peter's arrival, Helen treats Jo dismissively, using various excuses to get her out of hearing such as 'Oh go and have your bath'; 'Jo, go and see to that coffee!'; 'Go and lay the table'; and finally gives up thinking of these excuses and says 'Well, do something' followed by a dismissive and quite innapropriate 'Turn yourself onto a bloody termite and crawl into a wall or something.'

Jo's behaviour in this scene is quite protective and doubting of Peter's love proposal for Helen. The quote 'I bet he's married' implies this doubt. She also refuses to leave them to a provate conversation multiple times.

Jo and Helen make revealing comments about affection once Jo enters with the coffee. Helen tells Peter that Jo 'can't bear to see me baing affectionate with anybody' before Jo replies with 'You've certainly never been affectionate with me' which implies that Helen views and treats her clients in a much more affectionate way than her daughter, and this also suggests bad mothering.