In this article we are presented with a very negative point of view on jellyfish, and why their ongoing existence, is threatening divers and impeding the safety of nuclear plants. The title, being big and bold, immediately draws the attention towards the text. This graphological feature is important because it engages the reader, so that they find themselves engrossed before they even know what the text is about.
“Slimezilla”, the first word in the title, is an allusion to the movie Godzilla. The merging of the two words, slime and Godzilla, is primal because the structure of the jellyfish -slimy- combined with the beastly feature of Godzilla creates an overall image of an appalling, ogrish creature. Following that, an exclamation mark elaborates the word to convey an emphatic declaration of shock, excitement and astonishment, all in one.
Complementing this, the next three words used, effectively describe the jellyfish in a negative light. The use of ‘monster’ relates back to “Slimezilla”, as it is yet again comparing the jellyfish, to a ghastly creature. This metaphor derives the reader’s attention away from the animalistic features of the jellyfish, to focus more on the fantasy-like ferociousness of the sea creature.
When thinking of a fleet of warships, images of blood, battle, death and so on rush through our heads. The use of the word ‘armada’ is emphasizing the already clear viewpoint towards the jellyfish by referring them to fighters and attackers. The following phrase “threatens divers and nuclear plants” shifts the tone to a more serious and grim one since it shows that it is potentially life threatening, on a small scale (divers) and on a large scale (nuclear plants).
Wrapped around the title is a large picture with a diver and a jellyfish. We are again presented with a graphological tool when given the diver as a scale to emphasize how huge the jellyfish really are. With there only being two things in the picture, our main focus is fully highlighted to the diver and the jellyfish. In contrast, the fact that the diver is so close to the amphibian, reduces the threat level and makes us feel more comfortable, despite all the negative impression left by the text.
In the beginning of the article, we are introduced to what the jellyfish do. By using strong verbs such as ‘poison’, ‘sting’, and ‘attack’, we are able to retain a general image of endangerment. The first four sentences, beginning with “they” before introducing the jellyfish, helps the reader imagine what “they” look like, giving more power to the words and the readers imagination.
The phrase stating that the jellyfish “attack nuclear power stations” shows us the use of hyperbole to magnify the amphibians’ hinderness by saying that they actually go and attack the power stations where in reality they actually just get stuck into the pumps. This can also directly refer back to the title in which the word ‘armada’ was, indicating a lexical feature of war and battle, in between the words and throughout the text.
The rule of three is seen in “pink, slimy and repellent”. This is put here to help the reader easily remember or associate the author’s description or view of the jellyfish. In the next sentence, the “rubber monsters” that they are perceived to be, is juxtapositioned by the “real misery” they inflict on Asian Fishermen. This contrasts the silly side of the text, including the reference to Godzilla with the actual impact the jellyfish have on the fishermen, changing the tone into a more serious one.
As jellyfish don’t have brains, blaming them for “their latest assault”, gives these amphibians artificial or intelligence and further supports the war-like lexical theme or genre of the words in the text. This contrasted by “a helpless Japan” uses sympathetic language to underestimate the power of a whole country and overestimate the power of the jellyfish.
In the second paragraph, we see a repetition of the word “armada” from the title, further strengthening the war-like theme of the article. Article
Paragraphs three and four are informative and give us an idea of why this article was written. Using statistics and data such as “6ft wide” and “It was in 2005...” and respectable citations such as Professor Shinichi, the text will also have a formal, reliable and informative purpose rather than just for the comedic and opinionated output.
This was an article written in The Times. Although it appeals to all age groups, it has been found that over thirty two percent of the readers are people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. This is important because since most of these people are relatively young, this informative article might have an impact on them and prompt them to make a change that gives us the main reason this text was written, for someone to make a difference.
This article was written by Richard Lloyd Parry in Tokyo. Due to his western name and the fact that he is writing for the Times, it is safe to assume he’s a British journalist. So being a foreigner living in japan, and seeing the endless misery caused by the jellyfish, he may have been prompted or inspired to write this article. We can clearly see where he stands on the matter as the entire article’s lexical feature highlights a negative approach to jellyfish as it does not give any positive arguments for the benefit of amphibians.