Greetings! As I scanned the Review Request page, I found myself intrigued by the title of this piece. It almost seems too long for a headline, but on the site it's an excellent way to catch people's attention. As for the article itself, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, you take the time to explain why we shouldn't condemn the actions of all Christians. On the other hand, I think you try to cover too many bases in the space of an article. As a result, a lot of irrelevant facts are tossed into this article that detract from the overall message. For that matter, I'm not so sure that classifying this piece as an article is accurate. I'd be more inclined to call this an editorial piece than an article, since the connotation of the word article suggests a more objective position taken on the subject. On that note, here are a few things that stood out to me as I read the piece.
During the darkest hours of the night....
On a minor technical note, you forgot to indent this paragraph. I only mention it because the other paragraphs are indented.
That aside, I was a little puzzled by this scene you have depicted. It's a well constructed scene, and given your ambition to write for Time, I can see why you used it. On the other hand, it detracts from the overall point of the article, not to mention it does take up valuable space. Given that this is written for your school newspaper, it's probably worth omitting, if for no other reason to save some space. Likewise, how well do you think the student body will respond to such an opening? As a college student, I see it resonating with a college audience. With high schoolers, however, I'm not so certain. You'll have to decide on that one (especially given that each high school has a different culture from the other).
As a churchgoer, I do find most of these journalists a little out of whack. But the fact remains:
I actually have a few comments about these two lines. The first pertains to diction. In a high school newspaper, you can get away with saying "a little out of whack." However, in more professional journalism arenas, you should opt for a more formal word choice. here are a couple examples.
I do find these journalists like to exaggerate their fears.
I do find these journalists express their views, emphasizing emotions without considering both arguments.
As far as the second line goes, I feel that starting the sentence with 'but' is another instance of informal diction. I have seen it used in professional publications (much to my dismay), but I feel there are more effective words/phrases you can use. Such words include however, nonetheless and in any case.
When, last year, jeering Mira Loma students were waving “Gays Go to Hell” signs at fellow students, this notion may seem hard to swallow, but know this:
I feel for anyone who attempts to diagram this sentence. Seriously, this line may cause readers to trip up and scratch their heads at its meaning. I was thrown off by the use of the word 'when', followed by what is supposed to be a complete sentence. I would suggest depicting the demonstration in one sentece and then stating your point about the religious world in another. Considering that you'd like to insert a mini-ancedote into your article, trying to put it and a major point of your article in one sentence results in a rambling line that is tricky at best to follow.
What needs to change is (repeat after me) Christian Fundamentalism.
From what I've read, your article has two major lynchpins, and this line is one of them. From this point, you offer a lot of information about what others see when we see Evangelicals but offer little in the way of evidence that not all Evangelicals hold these beliefs. An extreme standpoint on this imbalance is that you agree with the radical Evangelical agenda than you make it seem. I don't agree with that standpoint, but I do think that your depiction of these radicals is cause for concern. You later go on to make this point.
There are many friendly Evangelicals out there who do behave as if they have their head screwed on.
I think providing some more information on these Evangelicals would be more constructive and more persuasive. Showing how the majority behave and believe can open up a more open dialogue between Evangelicals and those with other belief systems (and I'll get back to this point in a minute).
There was an almost authoritarian sense....
Looking back at my original topic....
Are these sentences supposed to start new paragraphs? If so, add some {indent} tags. If not, you might want to fix the spacing to include thse sentences with the preceeding paragraphs.
If we want Evangelicals to have more tolerance, we should show them the same.
Here is the second lynchpin of your article, and to me, this is the most important of the two. This is also all that is ever said on this point, and it will prompt many skeptics to ask How can we show tolerance? Granted, this is a difficult question to answer, and I'm not sure where one would begin in showing some tolerance. Nonetheless, since you propose this as the solution to the problem of tempering Christian Fundamentalism, you ought to suggest some steps the rest of us can take in extending tolerance to radical Evangelicals. Offering even just a couple semi-detailed steps of how to extend this tolerance can prompt a discussion between Evangelicals and others. Perhaps this discussion is the solution. If you think that is the case, say so in the article. One sentence stating we should grant tolerance to these Evangelicals does not provide a solid enough footing for us if we're serious about making this arrangement work. People want to see solutions, not soundbytes. That way, they have an idea of how to proceed. Besides, offering suggestions on how to take action in this regard will make readers view your article in a less cynical light.
This piece touches a lot of bases, and I can see this almost as a series on tolerance. It's also an excellent stepping stone for breaking down the emotional/psychological barriers between groups. I strongly suggest looking at diction, organization of your points and depicting a constructive viewpoint when revising this piece. I would also even consider making two versions of this: one for the newspaper and one as an exercise for more prifessional writing. Those two types of writing are very different from one another, and trying to combine them tends not to work well. Both types have to meet different criteria and will be read by different audiences, so two versions might help you get an idea of how to communicate with each one. You have a solid start with this piece. What it needs is focus in order to be most effective for any audience.
~Elisa
|
|