A critique of Final JFK Conspiracy Paper
Introduction
Bartholomae is an expert of literature whose work, “Inventing the University” remains a resourceful tool for genre analysis and understanding. My paper, JFK Conspiracy paper attempted to adopt some of the skills and lessons picked from his works. JKF Conspiracy paper is an historical account of the conspiracy and intrigues that surrounded the assassination of John F Kennedy. It adopts the lessons learnt from the work of Batholomae. In that paper, I explain why I believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and why I strongly believe the government was involved.
I approach the paper in an impressive way that catches the attention of my audience. Indeed, I apply genre knowledge effectively and convincingly stand out as a good student who knows what to apply where and how. This critique would examine the application of genre knowledge that impressed on the readers and how further knowledge could be used in making the paper more spicy for its final readers.
My appreciation of facts and blatant nature in which I put them impresses on the reader. I apply a calculated method with a perfect word choice that fits the occasion. I know when to put up a question. In fact, I employs rhetorical questions effectively. This appeals to the audience through the throwing of questions that a reader already had in mind. This creates in the audience the feeling of togetherness. This way, I carry the readers all the way from the beginning to the very end.
Through the proper word choice, at no time is a reader left wondering aloud in boredom. This the paper achieves by applying words that would ordinarily be expected in a conspiracy paper. In addition, my understanding of the history excites the readers. It produces a convincing effect to the reader. As the reader peruses the paper, he gets the feeling of an informed author’s perspective. This can only demonstrate two elements often essential in genre literature. That is, it demonstrates wide research and at the same time demonstrates knowledge and understanding of my audience. The next paragraphs would explain that in detail.
One would ask, how exactly does my work demonstrate research? And what effect does that have on the audience. First, demonstration of research can be identified in the subtle yet certain manner in which I assert with fact. For any assertion I throw around, I back it up with credible and logical evidence. This appeals to the audience. It creates in the audience the need to understand the historical account and hence dig out the facts. It does not concentrate facts in one area. I skilfully elect what to reveal at what time and why. One wonders why some information is tacked in the first paragraphs while related information is brought in later as the paper gets to an end. It has the effect of creating consistency. This goes deep in winning over the audience’s trust. They consider it reliable and honest. The organized chronology also ensures the audience is not filled with too much information that makes the paper look a mere critic of government work. It subtly communicates the relevant information at the convenient time.
The factual analysis of occurrences and tactical rebuttals appeals to logic. One sees the hidden and behind the curtains reasons for some activities. This enables the audience to fall in line with the author’s narrative. It achieves the objective of convincing the audience that indeed, a conspiracy did exist. If not, then at least it helps in puncturing holes in the government report. In addition, the paper manages to critic the government without appearing vindictive. The well put up references relying on reports, films and documentaries help in cementing assertions that on the surface would have appeared baseless and hence false at first instance. However, the reader gets the backing and is cautioned against merely making assumptions. This research based approach enables the paper gain legitimacy and attention, two essential necessities for any genres works.
How does the paper demonstrate an understanding of the audience? Is it effective? The answer is in the affirmative. I demonstrate an understanding of my audience. The paper effectively shows that the work is intended for a particular audience. This fact can be ascertained through a number of observations. One, my language is refined and sits well within the province of American history. It show my clear intention that the work is for an audience with a grasp and an interest in American history. This could be political theory, American history, government studies, and diplomacy, among others. The language is refined and does not raise emotion even for an audience that choses to disagree. Rather it evokes a curiosity that is normally common in conspiracy pieces.
Other than the language, the paper applied logic to the letter. I begin by laying assertions. As an audience reading this work seeks to challenge my assertions, I lays out the logic. The logic assumes a dual approach. First, the logic is actually sensible. It does not scream when I should only whisper. It does not cry when I should only talk. The logic appeals to the emotion of the audience and could have the eventual effect of convincing the reader to believe my theory. The other approach in my logic is the fact that the paper bases assertions on evidence. It does not merely say that the assassin could not have succeeded solely. It shows the evidence by the fact that the bullets were several and in different directions. It also cites events relating to photos taken. This evidence backed approach endears my paper to my audience.
In addition to the understanding of the audience, the paper is written in the right context. It talks of an historical fact but using the modern context giving it a taste that appeals to the audience. It uses movies, films and documentaries to back assertions perhaps in the knowledge that the audience appreciates such sources and have probably come across them. This makes the work resonate well in terms of the context. It is essential to note that the paper does not lose the historical context.
However, the work does not embrace fully genre techniques. It demonstrates a good knowledge of the genre but not necessarily one hundred percent. For example one has the feeling that the paper ought to have applied word choice in a more pronounced way. In some expressions, the paper becomes economic with words. It prefers to use words outside the context. In addition, it fails to apply satire and sarcasm to chide the conspirators. The paper fails to employ satire to ridicule the bloated government handling of the situation. Although it casts enough aspersions on the manner in which government handled the situation, one feels that it should have done better to sound more convincing and stronger. The paper also fails to place sarcasm where needed. For instance, in my analysis of Johnson Lyndon’s demeanour and motive, it fails to employ sarcasm to chide the former president. The paper also tackles Johnson and his government with kid’s glove suggesting some element of restraint that to some could amount to weakening the assertions made.
In conclusion, the paper is way above average. It covers essential genre requirements and equally appeals to the reader. It manages to hold the attention and suspicion of the reader from the beginning to the end in a way that impresses. The paper also comes out as relevant in terms of context. However, it is the understanding of my audience that boggles the readers. The paper applies language, content and logic that resonates well with the audience. In the long run, the use of genre knowledge is laudable. The paper reveals uses genre knowledge to reveal the values and beliefs in somebody. I took the opportunity to demonstrate my values of honesty, courage and openness through the open nature in which I tackled the paper. However, the paper needs to make more use of genre techniques like satire, sarcasm and word choice. Overall it achieves the genre purpose. This is the fact that the paper successfully communicates to the message to the audience. It even goes further to provoke not only thinking and inquisition but further research on the subject matter. This makes the work a successful piece of writing.
Work Cited
Batholomae, David. "Inventing the University." Bedforst. Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston, 2011. 511-524.
