Close Reading Three

Malala and Nabila: Worlds Apart

While the US was focused on one Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, another girl, Nabila Rehman, was trying to tell her story and was virtually ignored. The author of this piece, Murtaza Hussain, believes that this is due to the fact that Malala is a fitting "human face" for the US cause in the Middle East, where Nabila's story brings up uncomfortable topics for our government and our country as a whole. Hussain uses details, diction, and imagery to make readers think and share his disappointment and anger with the US government.

Throughout the piece, Hussain uses details to get his point across. He mentions several times that Nabila is only nine years old, which makes her story all the more incredible and makes the reader wonder why it didn't receive more coverage. He also brings up the fact that, when Nabila testified in a congressional hearing, "only five out of 430 representatives showed up." When contrasted with the number of people who heard Malala's story thanks to the media (likely anyone who reads the news), this seems like a shockingly small number, and adds a lot to the claim Hussain makes, that the government "[snubbed] this family and ignore the tragedy it caused them."

The diction Hussain uses is less formal, in order to appeal to a wider range of audience. Instead of being told by someone who uses challenging language that could be seen as elite or exclusive, the piece is written to sound serious but accessible. For example, the translator is described as  "[breaking] down in tears." While this is not quite colloquial diction, it's definitely not elevated either. The author wants to sound educated enough to be taken seriously without alienating readers. Hussain also effectively communicate his frustration with the situation with his word choice. He uses words like "utter contempt" to describe the feelings of the US government towards people like Nabila. While that may be harsh, it certainly shows his anger.

Hussain's choices when it comes to imagery show very clearly who he sides with in this argument (hint: definitely not the US). Right from the beginning of the article, he is painting the picture of Nabila and her family as peaceful people who had the misfortune of living in the Middle East during the war. He goes to great lenghts to describe what she and her family were doing the day of the strike: Nabila's grandmother was "teaching the children how to pick okra as the family prepared for the upcoming Eid holiday." Several things about this contribute to the image Hussain wants readers to have in their head as they continue reading. Nabila's grandmother, who died in the attack, was teaching her grandchildren how to do the innocent act of pick food. The family was preparing for a holiday - they are humans just like any of us, and they were preparing for a celebration. This description clearly portrays them as the innocent victims of the drone attack. The aftermath attack itself is also a part of the image, as it is described as making the children's lives "a nightmare of pain, confusion and terror." The contrast between these two images, the first of an innocent family and the second of that same family thrown into a tragedy, adds a lot to Hussain's argument by appealing to readers' emotions.