Writers use certain language and words to express the purpose of their writing. The language used in writing has an effect on the reader, this effect could be purposeful or not. But the lexical choice from the writer has a big effect on outcomes that can be withdrawn from the text from the reader.
The writer uses detailed descriptions of almost everything they incorporate in the text. Their lexical choice for the first paragraph makes Kashmir seem beautiful at face value. But, after dissecting what is actually written and the detailed descriptions, then it is realized how disappointing Kashmir is compared to previous ideas. Kashmir has "yellow mustard fields", which means the grass is yellow rather than the desired green. The mountains are "snow capped", which is normal. The "milky blue sky" meaning that clouds cover the sky, but not in a overshadowing way, but they cover the sky partially throughout.
The second paragraph has the same result as the first paragraph, but the disappointments of Qazigund in the second paragraph are more obvious and can be seen on the first read. The descriptions and word choice for the descriptions of Qazigund are written in the same way as the descriptions for Kashmir. There was "dust in the sunlight", meaning dust and sand is always in sight and in the air, which isn't comfortable. There is also "a smell in the cold air of charcoal, tobacco, cooking oil, and months-old dirt, and human excrement". Charcoal, tobacco, dirt, and human waste are all unpleasant smells, some of the smells could be unbearable. This shows the undesirability of Qazigund. "The grass grew on the mud-packed roofs of cottages", then the writer talks about how he understands why a lady in a story put the cow on the roof. This shows housing conditions, where the grass and mud is piling up on the roof and growing.
The structure of the text is out of order as well. If Qazigund is the gateway towards Kashmir, why is Kashmir being described first? It doesn't make sense as the reader needs to know the geographical context within the writing to fully understand it.
The introduction was unnecessary, I should've just started out by answering the prompt. My understanding of the text was there, but the words I wrote in my answer weren't proper and detailed enough to get anything above a 3 for AO1. I referenced the text many times and elaborated on what I quoted. But, my elaborations weren't detailed enough. So for AO1 I believe I got a 3. I have limited analysis in my answer. I just explained quotes from the text and how unfortunate the setting is. There isn't much analysis nor appropriate language. For AO3, I believe I got a 3. In total, I believe I got a 15/25.
ReplyDelete