Audience:
Lang is very particular with the different definitions that he has given of different characteristics. His writing seems to have humour and yet shows the reality. Certainly people other than just students and teachers would be interested to read his write up. The characteristics are tactics that can be played anywhere and in any office.
Purpose:
I believe it was written to make us have a better understanding of things that happen around us in office and yet we at times do not get the hunch of it.
Voice and Tone:
His tone of humour and yet the seriousness of the topic is what builds his ethos. Whatever he has written is true to understand the intention of people working in certain work places. This piece of work certainly is pointing towards how professor act, but it is also applicable for other working environment.
Context, format and genre:
His essay is certainly a serious writing with a great touch of humour. The different titles that he uses for different characteristics are in themselves quite funny while they are totally appropriate ones to describe the characteristics.
Initial reaction to Lang’s analysis:
Yes I found it humorous and it was the twist of humour in it which kept me going. His precise description of the characteristics and making them tangle with the humorous titles are an amazing piece of work.
Lang’s categories and sub-categories:
Yes I find his categories to be quite accurate and the right ones to describe the various characteristics. For example, the title “the early bird” reminded me of birds waking up in the morning and chirping. And his definition of students waking up early to talk to professor goes with the title without saying! Similarly I found other categories to be appropriate too.
References:
- James, M.Lang . "Putting in the hours" Chronicle of higher education. Print
