Language Analysis the Power of Ink Essay

Helen Day is a part-time journalist and blogger. She maintains her blog entitled Street beat on a soma of current sociable issues. This blog entry, The Power of Ink, is ab proscribed stains and it has drawn a variety of responses from readers of her blog.In recent years, the practice of inking your body, or having tattoos indelibly imprinted on your skin has become almost de rigueur for many in our society, especially the young. on that delegate is a wide variety of views about this practice and Helen Day, a stock blogger, has her vocalise in her entry The Power of Ink. Rather than lecturing her substantial audience of followers, Day chooses simply to trace the stages of the history of tattoos, charge on the changes in their meaning and significance. Her use of examples and language with negative connotations is legal in arguing that large number who choose to adorn themselves with tattoos are sound as lots victims or prisoners as those for whom they were originally inte nded. Her blog attracted quadruple extremely varied responses within the next twenty four hours, demo that this is indeed a contentious issue. Helen Day begins by establishing the ubiquitous record of tattoos. In a light-hearted, humorous way, she mentions that people from all walks of life, including suburban housewives, newsreaders and situation comedy stars have wrangling and pictures drawn on their skin.Even at this early stage, she mentions prison and readers may feel uncomfortable with this reference, which is still what the writer intends. She distinctly states her line that the power of ink has diminished. Day begins her argument by clearly establishing the original purpose of tattooing, using examples from millennia as support. She mentions the origins of the practice whither the unconsenting backs of prisoners and slaves were marked to introduce that they were owned, deviant or incarcerated. She goes further to remind readers of the literal and metaphorical inera dicable cruelty of the tattoos forced upon inmates of the Nazi concentration camps during World War 11. Her words are carefully chosen at this stage of her argument to establish a feeling of unease and repulsion in her audience at the idea that tattoos representedownership or control and that those on whom they were impose were considered to be somewhere between property and machine.By associating tattoos with leave out of free will or self-determination, she predisposes her readers to think negatively of the practice of tattooing, even up before she considers what it represents in contemporary society. Day goes on to provide an example of how those forced to wear tattoos resented this imposition and how they showed their refusal to be controlled, satirising their owners by adopting their own magnetic variation of an owners mark. She connects this act of defiance to the motivation behind her determination to demonstrate her feminist principles in the 1990s, wryly remarking th at her enterprise to protest and be unique fell flat because now even the British bloom Ministers wife has an ankle tattoo. The language the writer uses here is quite mocking of her young self. She separates herself from the young Helen, representing her actions as clich and immature, in an attempt to position her readers to view it in the same way. The comment from young Tash (written after-hours at night) is a perfect example of such (some might say misguided) youthful impulsiveness.Readers can hear the excitement in Tashs piece as she describes how she knowing her own ankle bracelet and how she likes to show it rancid. The use of language such as like and yeah, suggests that she is rattling young and may one day regret her decision erect as Helen Day does. The comment from Cleanskin also echoes Days point that tattoos fade and stretch over time and may not get an older person. These responses underline the writers heart of act in haste, repent at leisure and young reader s may cringe when indicant Tashs enthusiastic comment. Day concludes her blog entry by redefining the social meaning of tattoos in todays society. She describes them as having been commodified, that is, just something else to be bought and sold and with no real significance. She uses the expression try hard, suggesting that people who have tattoos are doing so to create a false icon of themselves in order to find acceptance. Readers would certainly not like to be included in this category. By describing tattoos as fashions proprietorship mark, she is claiming that those who decide to tattoo themselves are just as much slaves and prisoners as the original bearers of these marks, it is just that their owner is now fashion.In suggesting that tattoo wearers are still under the control of an outside force, thatfashion trends are dictating their actions, she hopes that readers will review their attitude to the practice. The contrast between the twain accompanying images starkly demons trates the writers argument that the meaning of tattoos has changed. The Ta Moko on the arms of the three Maori men clearly mark them as members of the same clan. The three tattoos are identical to each other, suggesting that the design is handed-down and has a particular significance for the wearers. Kiwis indignant exposition of non-Maoris imitating the sacred Ta Moko as identity theft would act as a strong disincentive to readers to undertake such a immoral and immoral action. The other shoulder tattoo of a star, shown on the attend cover of Sam de Britos 2006 book, might well have been designed by the wearer, but it has none of the cultural weight of the Ta Moko designs.The images beef up the idea that it may be fashion that is dictating the current trend to tattoo ones skin. This blog is certainly cause for thought. Although Helen Day sets out to argue that the power of ink has diminished, she really argues against this. In establishing the lean that tattoos are still ju st as powerful a message about ownership, but that the owner has changed from government and slave owner to the despot of fashion, she prompts her online audience to rethink whether in deciding to ink themselves they are actually being a unique rebellious individual or just another fashion victim.