English 204 Critique

ENGLISH 204

CRITIQUE

Dania Rizvi

53569

      “I’m all for A-list activists – in the right role” written by Lucy Siegle, tries to support famous celebrities who are used to put a face on organizations and campaigns that support world wide problems such as Unicef and UNHCR. The article is written in ‘The Observer’, a British newspaper, where Siegle, a journalist, writes frequently about environmental issues.

    As Leonardo Dicaprio preformed at the climate summit on the 23rd of September, Siegel was provoked to write an article for the sister news paper of The Guardian, when asked what difference would Dicaprio make by getting on his jet and landing in New York for the event. She writes to defend A-list activists and why they are useful to make a change, she also mentions counter arguments by Dan Brockington who has written two books about celebrity advocacy and she agrees with his points. The text mentions several celebrities at different events to help current issues and the writer tells us about sacrifices some of the celebrities make for these events such as Victoria Beckham missing out on her store opening.  The article appreciates the appearances of Angelina Jolie, Emma Watson, Leanardo Dicaprio and Emma Thompson, although the stance the writer takes is not clear as she agrees with points made against her claim.

  Siegle uses complex words ‘escapism’, ‘counterintuitive’ and ‘enamored’ making the language of the text complex. Her ideas are not mentioned clearly either, if I were to skim read this article I wouldn’t get her point easily. “And he delivered his speech sporting a man bun…” at points in the text irrelevant information is mentioned such as comparing Jolie and Hepburn’s work and it seems the writer goes off topic easily without creating a logical argument. Her title supports A - list activists, Seigle also claims she is on the pro –fame side in the text, although her arguments do not support this. Several times in the text the writer contradicts her statement as at one point she agrees to Brockington’s opinions but at the same time gives importance to celebrity advocates. No rebuttal from her side against Brockington is seen in the text, whereas his claims are against hers and she agrees with the point he makes.

“Celebrity would only communicate the positive” She agrees here to a point against her argument but goes on to support celebrity advocates.  Comparatively she knows celebrity blogging won’t make a change, not on global level anyway, as she says in her conclusion.  

For a person who does not follow celebrities or isn’t familiar with them would have a hard time understanding her claims as she doesn’t not provide background information to many points she makes. “Gone are the stiff upper lip approach of Hepburn’s day…” A lot of readers may not know to what this refers to making her point unclear. In one of her paragraphs she mentions two points, which do not connect and are left unexplained. “Also argues Brockington…” Siegle starts by mentioning how advocacy makes the rest of us lazy and relates that to Jolie’s shiny hair.  Her grammar through out the text isn’t consistent either. “But I appreciate there some points…”  

...