Aim for the A*: Explorers or Boys Messing About?

How does the columnist/writer use language to explore his thoughts and feelings as well as offer critique on the men’s actions?

The account opens with a rhetorical question, which directly calls on the reader to form judgment of the men’s actions.

He directly compares the men’s misadventures to a ‘farce’, which strengthens his dismissive opinions of the men.

The writer routinely infantilises the men. This is by comparing them to ‘boys’, including a third party’s comment as the perpetrators being ‘boys messing about with a helicopter’ and finally, concluding his thought-piece by suggesting that the men will have ‘their bottoms kicked’.

The writer continuously focuses on the shortcomings of the men, by devoting greater space to detailing the events that went wrong. The few positive comments about the men, such as them being seasoned adventurers, only appears towards the end of the article. This is then immediately followed by a paragraph that re-iterates their past mishaps. The writer could be displaying signs of bias, but he uses it skilfully to get his point across. 

The use of ‘taxpayer’ is significant. It is an example of metonymy, and its use suggests that the reader is directly implied in the costs borne by the government in rescuing the men. 

There is a heavy usage of words linked to technology. Examples include ‘Robinson R44, Lynx helicopters, and Snowbird VI’. The writer skilfully uses these to paint a picture of masculinity gone awry, as gendered notions often assume that it is men and boys who are fascinated by technology. 

Notice also the repeated mention of the navy, air force and coastguards (Royal Navy, RAF and British Coastguards). The armed forces are also routinely associated with men and masculinity. The repetition of the above paints a picture of hyper-masculinity. The writer is lightly mocking the scenario – suggesting that ‘more men’ are needed to fix up the actions of misbehaving men!

The writer references geopolitical tensions, by including references to countries like Chile and Russia. This reinforces the severity of the men’s actions, suggesting that their bad choices could have wider repercussions.

 

The writer also states that Mr. Smith was nicknamed ‘Q’. ‘Q’ is a secondary character in the James Bond franchise who is believed to be adept with technology. By including this comparison, the writer further satirises the ineptitude of the men.