English – Text Production Analyses of ”I Surrender, Dear” By: Peter Packroff 11CK13
“The Surrendered Wife” is the title of Laura Doyle’s new book which is being critized by Tamaly M. Edwards in the article “I Surrender, Dear”. But why exactely is she introducing the new book in such ironic way? I will look closer into the parts of the text where she is using subjectives and colours her language. She has hiddin messeges written behind the lines which I will try to show. Fx in her choices of “real life examples” she has picked out from the book. The text is a one page article containing a picture of the book whose cover is pretty similar to the book “Green Fried Tomatoes” which is known to be girly and romantic. Pictured a rose and a text of romantic italic types. The introduction of the article begins “We all now...”. The purpose is to make a connection between reader and writer. Edwards continues “what to do?” and list up exampels from the book fx “give him the check book”, “apologize for being disrespectful”. But in the midle of the last column Laura “counters that her book is not hard doctrine or meant for everyone”. It is common known that it is the small details in the relationship that causes the troubles. Any way they are just smaller parts of a bigger trouble case that have been build up over a long period of time. In the real life examples Edward pics out the stories without going into detalis with the background stories that the troubles causes. Fx the story of Rachel Godwin is told as if it was her husbands choice of sneakers and socks that was the main problem.When you point out these examples and leave out the whole problem, the cases may seem ridicules and seems like minor problems. As if there were no real problems existing at all. From this point of view she must conclude that the publishing of this book is unnessesary. Edward uses many coloured words (subjectives) that describe her own opinion. Such as “The book has understandable provoked...”, “...some of Doyle’s ideas seem demeaning and questionable”. She also uses strong words as praises – used in the sentence “John Gray praises it”. Later she uses the word disciples about Rachel Godwin to line up her opinion. These words may send relegious
signals which also refers to strictly conservative Christians. The historical background of the strict cristian living is very dominated by men, and must by feminists be understanded as “a step back for the women rights”. Also that this book is writtin with udner strong religious influence and results that it is not the writers own voice that is speaking. Edwards is also ironic in her use of metaphores such as “Doormat?...”, which clearly shows the new position of the woman, if she follows the book’s advises. In the second column she is more direct by writing “Some of Doyle’s ideas have the imprent of sanity” – and she actually seems to swap side, but of course the argument is followed by “but...”. (A shoot proof retoric tool used through 2500 years which disarm every argument that might be let out as defend). Beside from retoric tools above, Edward is obviously using more space and words for the negative citation. For example: John Gray, “Practicle and valuable tool” and Andrew Christensen “It’s destructie. It’s a throwback, and it doesn’t protect women”. “True intimacy comes from being able to express your true thoughts and feelings”. The article is published in a news paper, Time, which probably as most papers, have many male readers. Edward wants to reduce the popularity of this controversial book. She sees as a republishing of same concept as books writtin John Gray, who comments the book on the cover. The male reader might find the contence funny and might see this as the perfect “hate present”. But Edwards claims indirectly that this book is not even worth a good laugh. “It may be tougher for the rest of us to find the diamonds amid all the coal”. She leaves no doubts about her opinion of the book. Unfortuneately she does not leave a modern alternative to the massive problems that marriages had gone into through the new century. And a fact is that in the US you find the highest number of divorces in the world.