Outside Reading Set #4: Editorial

2/20/11

“Revoking the Marriage License.”

Belinda Luscombe

Editorial

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983883,00.html

“Revoking the Marriage License” is a deeply sarcastic, caustic piece. Using strong verbal irony, unusual sentence constructions, and repeated rhetorical questions, Belinda Luscombe crafts a voice with clear disapproval towards people who constantly marry and re-marry. Immediately, Luscombe condemns the ludicrous decisions of some couples: “Larry King is about to get unhitched for the eighth time. This despite the fact that his wife, Shawn Southwick, is 26 years younger and about a foot taller than he is. In other words, a perfect match.” In addition to biting verbal sarcasm, Luscombe reinforces her point with understatements such as “Losing a life partner or two could happen to anyone, but going through seven requires some effort.” and “She was hoping for a straight man; on the two occasions she married a gay guy, it didn’t take.” With each attack, Luscombe mocks unions which are obviously not going to succeed.

Luscombe’s clear-cut voice draws readers in and pulls them toward her opinion. Her ridiculous portrayal of the topic persuades readers and makes them see the folly of marrying too many times. In addition to manipulating language, Luscombe crafts her voice through unconventional syntax. She often starts her sentences with conjunctions, such as in “And Mr. King will be back in the dating pool” and “But other primates also practice infanticide and poop throwing, and we’re not about to sanction either of those.” Normally, placing conjunctions at the beginning of sentences would have a somewhat childish effect, but in this case, the unusual placement emphasizes these sentences and allows them to stand out. This is an essential tactic Luscombe uses in her writing, since most of her sentences that start with conjunctions are key points in her argument.

To demonstrate blatant doubt of the merit of marrying too many times, Luscombe includes important details such as repeated rhetorical questions: “So why do people who are committed vows abusers keep getting handed marriage licenses at city hall?” and “If batters and violent offenders get only three strikers, why should bad spouses get more?” She follows up later with “So why are we complicit in allowing people to make big public promises they have demonstrated a chronic inability to keep up?” Not only are the points in these questions logical and consistent with Luscombe’s argument, but they drive her point home by constantly influencing the reader to doubt the validity of the actions of people who break marriage vows too often.

This piece’s manipulation of language and syntax into unusual constructions is one of its greatest strengths. Not only does this create a strong narrative voice, it also captivates readers and convinces them of Luscombe’s opinions. Because of the deviation from conventional grammatical structures though, this piece has a rather fragmented feeling. Therefore, its weakness is a lacks of a unified structure; it feels more like a compelling list of details and facts. Thus, the speaker would not be appropriate for an AP exam. The writing is simply not organized and formal enough, although this style serves Luscombe’s original purpose quite well.