The Shadow Scholar" Guided textual analysis

The Shadow Scholar

The Shadow Scholar is an article published on "The Chronicle of Higher Education" written by someone that writes high-level papers for money and goes by the pseudonym 'Ed Dante'. His explanation is condescending, he criticizes the intelligence of his clients and the competence of their teachers. At first the anecdote about his current customer seems to be a way for this writer to explain the process, but really he uses it to put himself in a position of superiority and show how intelligent he is. He dedicates a lot of time to making himself look intelligent, but in reality he shows that he is good at stretching out information. It appears that he finds a way to cheat the system rather than being the genius he suggests he is, therefore his intention in this piece and the image he is trying to portray conflicts with what the content actually contains. This can be examined in the tone, argument, structure and use of language.

The tone is initially direct. The first words "the request..." start the anecdote. The client's message is presented verbatim preceded by "(if I had to put up with it, so should you)"; the first instance of a snobby tone. The actual text reads "You did me business ethics propsal for me I need propsal got approved pls can you will write me paper? (sic)". The two aspects here that undermine the point made later about the helplessness of these clients are in the text type and syntax. Text messages are never are formal and are prone to mistakes and second, judging by the syntax and grammar the client is certainly not a native English speaker, thus the reader does not feel sympathy the way the writer intended and rather portrays himself as inconsiderate. He says that 75 pages in a week is "no problem" and that he's written "5,000 pages of scholarly literature" and goes on to list vast range of high-level degrees he has written toward. This is meant to impress the reader, and he is proud when adding how he works with tight deadlines. His metaphor of him being a "doctor of everything" emphasizes this. His tone becomes more condescending as he addresses teachers, using "Somebody in your classroom uses a service that you can't detect, that you can't defend against, that you may not even know exist" which makes teaches seem defenseless and is insulting in the assumption that no teacher has ever heard of ghost writers. He then continues to insult the writing of the students saying they "couldn't write a convincing grocery list" and attributes this to lack of help in school, directly blaming teachers. Some of this is exaggerates the issue, he portrays himself as being superior and the savior to these students, but this generalization is flawed because obviously the people that are desperate enough to pay someone to do their work will not exemplify the best students, therefore he is comparing himself to the worst. He continues to insult the teachers in saying "I live well on the desperation, misery, and incompetence that your educational system has created" and then explains how miserable his peers are in their "thankless office jobs" at which point the tone is downright arrogant rather than proud. This comparison was excessive and presumably was meant to emphasize not only how skilled his is, but also how much happier and wealthier he is. He tries to appear non-nonchalant about the strenuous process he has to endure to write these papers, but it appears he does not actually write them in the way he insinuated. Thus there is tension and the reader cannot be confident in this writer because it seems that this is a lot of work for him, and four or five pages an hour of stretched-out research is not actually that difficult, but rather a form of intelligent plagiarism. In conclusion, the writer attempts to sound intelligent but is undoubtedly arrogant.

This piece that is supposed to be a "tell-all" is actually quite dishonest. His papers appear less difficult to write then the proud tone would suggest. This was explored previously, there is a tension between he image he is trying to portray and the information he provides. His intention is to make himself look good and exacerbate the situation of his students, but he is dishonest and has a narrow perception. Students that come to him do not accurately represent the best students. In describing his process he is vague. He says "First I lay out the sections of an assignment—introduction, problem statement, methodology, literature review, findings, conclusion" which is basically common knowledge. He says he starts "Googling" which, given the examples of types of papers, is not the best source of information. He claims he can "write a four-word sentence in 40 words. Just give me one phrase of quotable text, and I'll produce two pages of ponderous explanation. I can say in 10 pages what most normal people could say in a paragraph." which he intended to be impressive perhaps but it reveals that he is not actually at doctorate level in all the fields of study he listed, but rather good and stretching out information and plagiarizing intelligently. For a tell-all piece, he actually tells very little. Even the examples used to support his argument are underdeveloped. His purpose and argument is centered around the fact that students are helpless and their teachers are incompetent, but the evidence he provides does not solidify his point as text messages do not accurately represent language ability in the quotations he used. Additionally, he shames students for not being able to spell using the word "desperate" as an example, which also helps transition to his point about his client's desperation. Spelling does not reflect intelligence either. In general, all these claims are used to support the argument that the school system is failing and teachers are incompetent, but the fact that the writer does not seem to realize how narrow his scope is when he is only in contact with these certain students does not make for a strong argument especially when substantial evidence is not provided. At the end, the questions "Why does my business thrive? Why do so many students prefer to cheat rather than do their own work?" are posed and then essentially ignored. This is a question that the reader would develop and any insight into the problem would be useful. This is detrimental to the argument, as in the end no actual useful information is presented after relentless attack on teachers and students. At most, this piece raises awareness about the issue but the writer offers nothing of use after his criticism and what should be an "insider" information in this type of text.

The language and structure does not reflect the level expected of a writer who prides himself on his writing ability. The anecdote at first appears to be a way for the writer to show his process of accepting a request and writing a paper, but he is vague is his description and does not explicitly say how he would go about writing a business ethics proposal as his client asked for. Its actual use is to create contrast between his style of writing and show how poor the students are at writing. This client is only brought up again at the end, which serves its purpose of providing a conclusion. Ideas are disorganized in some places, such as when he writes "It is my hope that this essay will initiate such a conversation. As for me, I'm planning to retire. I'm tired of helping you make your students look competent." between paragraphs explaining how much he earns and his process. This paragraph would be more logical towards the end or after the paragraph criticizing the educational system along with the paragraph that begins with "Of course, I know you are aware that cheating occurs". Second, the language is perhaps appropriate for a tell-all piece, therefore the casual tone is some places is expected but the piece is referred to as an essay. There are certain errors in grammar. The more noticeable is the frequent use of "But" at the beginning of sentences. In other instances, commas are missing following introductory clauses such as in "Last summer The New York Times..." and "First I lay out the sections...". There are other conventions used that make the text less formal, such as using "2" to refer to the time and the use of contractions. However, the informal aspects of the text perhaps help to sell the image. If the piece was more formal, structured, and more disciplined in grammar, it would perhaps appear overambitious. The choice of register is absolutely appropriate, but the organization of ideas and grammatical errors challenge the image of brilliance that is trying to be portrayed. This is a piece that the writer knew was going to be published, therefore one would expect more attention to be paid towards these aspects especially when the writer prides himself on his writing ability. On the other hand, perhaps this register was employed to make it appear that the writer did not care that much about how he is perceived, which is consistent with what is written in the text.

In conclusion, the tone is proud and arrogant. The writer portrays himself as intelligent by listing all of his contributions to various fields of study as if he actually produced the level of work instead of finding a way to stretch out information. His perception is narrow, and he judges the entire education system unfairly and is insulting towards the students and teachers. The writer is not trustworthy. There are parts that are exaggerated, the focus is on himself and his image, and despite the piece being a tell-all there is information that would be helpful that is omitted and the writer is deceiving in the way he describes his profession. He was perhaps too revealing in the way he explains how good he is at producing long essays by using words excessively. For someone who prides himself on his ability to write essays, the argument is flawed and there are issues in the structure and grammar. In conclusion, the image that the writer intentionally tries to portray contradicts the content of the text.