Comedy Central's sketch show, "Key and Peele", has been consistently popular since its first episode in 2012. The program has been making waves with the release of its fourth season in September of this year. In Rob Sheffield's article for Rolling Stone, Key and Peele Are TV's Funniest Couple, he talks about the success of the show and how it has ushered in a new era of cable comedy; Sheffield uses diction, imagery, details, and syntax to praise it.
From the very beginning, the author draws the reader's attention with his diction. Using words like "prowl" and "ravaged" in the first sentence, Sheffield brings the reader in, describing one of the sketches. He uses honorific words like "genius", "buzzing", and "daring" to describe the show. The author also uses made up phrases like "Golden-Age-ing it up" to explain the success of Key and Peele. Sheffield could have easily chosen more bland terms in his description of the show, but he uses specific words to give the reader a positive idea.
Although the article is only talking about a television show, Rob Sheffield uses imagery and details to describe some of the iconic scenes. Again, in the very first sentence he says "The scene: two men with guns prowl through a ravaged urban wasteland after an alien apocalypse." With images like "prowl" and "ravaged" the author appeals to the reader's sense of sight. These words put a clear picture in the mind of the barren wilderness Key and Peele are traversing in this sketch. The details the author employs are the key to bringing the show to life. He uses direct quotes from the program to provide both humor and approval. Quotes like "And what are you, my little friend? Not a spoon, not a fork – something
in between. A fpoon! What will you think of next, Germany?" reflect the comedy that goes along with the show. Both the images and the details that are included work together to honor Key and Peele and the cable comedy era it has led.
The author uses a more casual syntax to relate to the reader so he can get his message across. A few of the sentences are broken up by parenthetical interruptions. For example, in the sentence "Their specialty is taking a simple one-joke premise (Obama talks
differently to black people) and kicking it back and forth to the point
of hysteria – by the end, Obama's yelling, 'Afternoon, my octaroon!'", the parentheses give the reader an idea of a casual conversation with the author. In the final paragraph, Sheffield says "All these cable successes raise a sticky question: Why is it so hard for the networks to be funny?" The use of a colon better connects the independent clause to the question than a period would. All of the syntax choices come off like a chat with the author, making the reader more inclined to listen to his opinion.
The literary elements that Rob Sheffield uses, like diction, imagery, details, and syntax, all cooperate to create a dialogue between the reader and the author and act to create a decisive view of "Key and Peele" and its affect on comedy.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing a short explanation of what the article is about before diving into the analysis! This is so important! :)
The only thing I could think of to work on in the post is that I would talk a bit more about the meaning that the author was trying to get across, and make clear connections between this and his use of rhetoric.
P.S. Could you make your font larger on your text posts? I found it kind of difficult to read...
Alex,
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I really don't have much to critique. I agree with Abby in that the meaning of the author wasn't really clear, so you could elaborate on that. And once you've done that, you can make more specific claims about how certain aspects of DIDLS convey that meaning. You're doing a fine job right now, but doing that could add a little more clarity.
Also, your paragraph on imagery could be extended a little. Just talking about certain scenes of the show doesn't count as imagery (I think?) but describing those scenes in concrete words with powerful connotations would be imagery. Does that make sense? Using imagery to try to persuade the reader that the show is good would be by using certain phrases or words that describe the show, not just talk about the scenes. Okay, it's not making sense. It's like saying "The ravaged wasteland" versus "The spot-on, grimy portrayal of a post-apocalyptic landscape"--one is describing the scene, and the other is describing how the scene is shot. Or, rather, how accurate the scene is, to show approval of the show and how good it is. Does that make sense? I'm confusing myself. Whatever. Your post is fine. Just more details. Great job!
Nora
Abby,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nora about how you need to further develop your discussion of the area's of DIDLS. Although you do explain each of your chosen pieces I feel as if you don't go into enough detail of how the quote relates to imagery. You should discuss more about how each area of rhetoric that he uses and the words that he pick directly correspond to the strength of the over all text.
Al Chow--
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you revised after reading peer reviews or if your reviewers were just struggling to find something to say...but from my pov this close reading is excellent. Keep up the good work!