EXPLORERS OR BOYS MESSING ABOUT

This guardian published news article is structurally changing between a focused account of
the failed field expedition and the opinion of experts and the public, including the writer
himself, about the two explorers choices . The first section alternates between fact and
opinion of the botched expedition that lit news headlines as its sparked outrage against these
grown men’s idiocy. The author of the article instantly reveals his opinion and establishes
bias through the title of the article “explorers or boys messing about?” the rhetorical question
and infantilising use of “boys” emphasizes the childish nature of the exploration and the irony
of the severity of their actions, emphasising the writers bias. This is reiterated through the
extended metaphor of theatre in regard to the exploration, initially described as “farce”, a
literary device used to connote the sense of ludicrousness and absurdity of their actions, as
well as the distinct lack of forethought. The further use of “tragedy” and “drama” create the
impression the men are only ‘playing’ at being explorers, producing a subtle bias and
undermining the credibility of the explorers.
Additionally, when recounting the way the actual rescue, the author uses dynamic verbs to
create a humorous image of the men. The use of “plucked” and “scrambled” portrays the
explorers as insignificant and childish, showcasing the authors opinion about their actions.
Furthermore, the author switches his focus to reinforce his argument via factual information
and statistics. Contrastingly to his previous focus on opinion, the switch to statistics when
mentioning the “nine-hour rescue” that cost taxpayers “tens of thousands of pounds,”
highlight the lack of forethought and disregard of consequences, especially regarding money,
a concept that would have infuriated the left wing readers of the guardian. This negative
impression is emphasized through the irony of the explorers attempt to excuse their
expedition and validate their own professionalism. They discuss their “trusty helicopter”, the
sarcastic mention an epitome of the author’s bias. This is ridiculed by the authors appeal to
expertise, quoting how helicopter expert Gunter Fondes , was “surprised” by the men’s
choice of transportation.
Finally, there is a structural shift the author employs towards the end of his article, moving
from the expeditions fail, to the explorer’s previous success, describing how “he has trekked
to Everest … and walked barefoot… in the Himalayas” to reveal the eccentric nature of the
explorers and to also highlight their wealth. This tactic would have incited anger amongst the
socialist readers, manipulating bias in favour of the author.

H IS FOR HAWK
Throughout the extract the purpose of the text is to entertain and explore the notion of
attachment in the process of recovery form loss. Helen Macdonald instantly captivates her
readers through the use of in media res, forcing the reader to assimilate quickly to the
situation, and through the first person narrative.

Macdonald demands the readers through her vivid description of the original hawk she
encounters, with the use of short sentences “concentration. Infinite caution, “creating a build-
up of tension. The bird’s initial appearance conveys the drama of the situation and the
anarchy that has ensued form the release of the bird from its box, emphasized through the use
of syndicate structure “wings and feet and talons.” This listing creates the feeling of the
action all happening at once, engaging the reader trough the faster pace.
The writer also conveys the birds majesty through the repetitive use of metaphors describing
the bird as a “conjuring trick,” and a “fallen angel” both of which contribute to the regal and
magical image of the hawk, interesting the reader through the contrasting description for a
large predator bird. MacDonalds selective use of lexical choice in order to engage the reader
is reiterated through the phrase “he said tautly” , with the adverb creating tension. This
tension is emphasized through the single word paragraph “oh,” upon discovering the bird is
not hers. The shock and disappointment intrigues the reader, further engaging her audience.
The writer also offers respite form the tension in form of humour, exclaiming the self-
deprecating joke “a sort of madwoman in the attack.” The use of intertextuality in reference
to Jane Eyre is designed to amuse the reader. However, the break is brief, and the tension is
resumed, ensuring the reader sustains interest through the oxymoron description of the
writers “slow panic.” The contrasting feelings create a sense of confusion form both the
writer and the audience. This confusion is left unanswered as Macdonald finishes the extract
on a note of suspense “there was a moment of total silence to grip the reader’s attention until
the very last line.

EXPLORERS DAUGHTER
The writer reveals her emotional turmoil and the internal conflict she has regarding the hunt
by presenting both the beauty and respect of the narwhal’s while also depicting the necessity
of the hunt for the Inghuit people.
Herbert initially focuses on the beauty of nature including the narwhals, to convey her
admiration for the majestic creatures. Through the use of vivid visual imagery, such as the
metaphor “glittering kingdom,” she reminds the reader on the magnificence of nature. This is
furthered through the description of the narwhals plumes of spray that “ catch the light in a
spectral play of colour,” revealing the key role they play in contributing to the natural beauty,
a subtle manipulation to place the reader against the hunt. As this was mainly a western
audience reading the novel, it can be presumed the readers would have been against the hunt
due to cultural ignorance and lack of understanding. By agreeing with her readers initially,
Herbert places herself in a position of trust which allows her to expose the readers to the
opposing side of the argument and leave them feeling partial to the Inghuit people.
Herbert then goes on to describe the necessity of the narwhal-hunting to the survival of the
Inghuits: a group of natives for whom she has great respect. She describes the narwhal as “an
essential contributor to the survival of the hunters”, using strong vocabulary to emphasise the
importance of the hunt. This is emphasised through the listing of the narwhals uses,
portraying the hunters as resources while also highlighting the difficulty of their lives. For
example , the narwhals fat is “the only source of light and heat” for them, portraying the vital
importance of the hunt and revealing the contradictions in Herbert’s loyalties. The lack of
malice in the killing is portrayed through the use of simple technology in the hunt, only a
“harpoon.” This is reiterated by the counterargument “the images that bombarded us… of
men battering seals,” using violent destructive language and repetition of plosive b sounds to
reveal the trivial nature of killing for sport. Furthermore, the use of the pronoun “us” shows
common ground between the writer and the reader, revealing a degree of empathy. However
Herbert then goes on to say in formal declarative tone “inghuit people do not kills seals using
this method, nor do they kill for sport.” The lack of contraction give her words an air of
greater authority and clarity, and the verb “kill” shows that Herbert is not shying away from
reality but rather accepting that the arctic is a harsh environment, both contributing to
strengthening her argument and assuring the reader she has made an informed decision.
During the actual event of the hunt, the writer conveys her internal conflict between her head
and her heart. Logically she supports the hunters; “ I urged the man on in my head,” however
she is also emotionally attached to the narwhal ; “ my heart also urged the narwhal to dive, to
leave, to survive.” The triple infinitive structure and the repeated “v” sound create and
emotional, sentimental tone, suggesting an element of tragedy. The repeated us of urged
reveals her parallel views towards them, and by showing herself as not completely one-sided
also makes her argument more trustworthy.

YOUNG AND DYSLEXIC