Close Reading Post #1 — Trayvon Martin
I am not sure why we find out Trayvon Martin had “…been there for seven days, after being suspended for the third time from Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in Miami, in this instance, for 10 days after drug residue was found in his backpack…” before we even get to understand how he died. The story is supposed to provide us with an impartial account of what transpired the night Trayvon died, but we keep being told that he may have been illicitly involved with drugs in several instances, from beginning to end. The possibility of drug use suggests that an individual may be threatening and volatile. The “drug residue” being immediately stated, along with his school suspensions, makes me feel that the description of Trayvon meant to present him as a problem child. When relating someone to drugs, before knowing anything else about them, one may be inclined to having preconceived biased notions; we are only human.
Later in the article, it states that when Zimmerman called the police, he said “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.” This was an accusation no one, not even Zimmerman himself, could prove. A negative connotation is readily associated with “drugs” so once we hear about it, we may feel that Treyvon could have possibly been a threat. The article nears its end saying “A medical examiner’s report later found trace elements of THC, an element of marijuana, in his system, though experts pointed out the challenge in equating the levels found with Martin’s level of intoxication at the time of his death.” After so much mention of drug use, however, Trayvon had no drugs on him at the time of his death.
This post is really strong. What I like is that you both really follow the trail, and you provide your reading and discussion of the various textual bits you find on that trail. If you were to develop this post into a paper, or just in the future for other writings, I’d like to see you work on the following:
1) There’s a genuine thinking but colloquial tone to this post (I.e. you start with “I don’t understand . . .”). That works great for a post. When you write a paper, you might start your first drafts that way, but then you will want to come back and rework that tone and the way you structure your beginning. The truth is that at least by the end of this post you have a kind of theory about why. Even if you are not sure exactly why this specific writer starts the article this way, you do have a theory about the effect of emphasizing the drugs.
2) Once you do one, you will hopefully see some ways to enhance the presentation of your own argument. a) I think your strongest detail is the question of the opening before we get any details. You need to keep coming back to that part b/c that part seems to be the most explicit rhetorical choice. The other part with what Zimmerman said passes off as just reporting, and the follow up with the toxicology all seems like a necessary detail once Zimmerman’s accusation is introduced. But you’re saying the way the article is structured creates an association between Martin and drugs if not also a causality between Martin with drugs and his death. All of what you’re suggesting is brilliant, but right now you don’t say it as explicitly as I am saying it, and in the future I want you to state your readings and arguments more explicitly.