First analytic piece

The writer uses the metaphor “he lies there patiently waiting to be called into action” to show that the narrator sees the hoody as a reliable figure, and to show the audience that it is a trustworthy item, almost painting it like a friend. It implies that the narrator has a bond with the Hoody, personifying it by using the lexis “patiently waiting”, giving it the item an aura of responsibility, his duty to protect the narrator.

Another example of personification would be the use of the phrase “one ally exists”. The use of the noun ‘ally’ allows the narrator to further develop the hoodys ‘personality’ and describes him like you would another human character. ‘Ally’ connotes to team member; someone who is fighting the same battles as you are. This fits the overall theme of the text as the narrator is tackling a proposed ban on the hoody, which would affect both him and his ‘ally’. The pronoun ‘him’ is continually used to refer to the hoody, further supporting this, possibly linking the narrator even more closely to the item, as we assume that the narrator is male due to some clues scattered throughout the text, and stereotypically men tend to identify more with members of their own gender.

The verbs “embraced” is used to describe how the hoody is used in society, suggesting many people love and use their own hoody’s and see it also as an ‘ally’. It also has a dual meaning because a hoody could be described as ‘embracing’ its owner once worn. This further implies the team dynamic, standing together against the government. It almost suggests that the narrator and the hoody work well together, and for the government to take it away would be a disastrous move, as by taking away the narrators ‘ally’ he is talking away a vital part of his identity.

The narrator tends to use a variety of negative adjective to describe the politicians mentioned in the text, one particular one being ‘pompous’. This adjective usage occurs very early on in the text, before the text switches from being written in a slightly childish tone, to a structured, almost essay-like argument. This adjective occurring early marks the beginning of the narrators anger beginning to brew over, as he begins to use some very negative language to describe the ‘pen pushing, makintosh sporting’ politicians. In fact, the narrator may almost see them as hypocritical as he deliberately points out an item of clothing he sees the politicians as wearing. He is deliberately generalising them as they are generalising his generation.

The narrator uses the simile ‘its genius is its demise like any truly great products of the earth” to show the audience how much he values his hoodie. He noun ‘genius’ shows that the narrator holds the hoody up in a high regard, and goes on to liken it to other ‘truly great’ products of the earth. This may show both a generation gap and a class gap, as whilst an implied university student believes a hoody to be a ‘truly great’ product of the earth, an older person may value a computer (especially in the 1990s where they were just starting to become more advanced, yet not everyone owned one) whilst someone of a higher class may value their car as a ‘truly great’ product (i.e. the ‘jag-driving’ politicians referenced earlier).

The narrator likens the hoody to a convertible car in a bid to construe how useful the hoodie is, possibly to appeal to the older generation who may value convertible cars as an important status symbol. The metaphor has a dual meaning, in terms of the hoodie can literally be likened to a convertible car (i.e. the ‘hood’ is optional), or the metaphor can be likened in terms of wealth.