introduction to commentaory of The Shadow Scolar

Technically, this is an essay; but I see as an open letter or a confessionary. It is written entirely by a man who ghost writes students papers. This was published by The Chronicle of Higher Eduction on the 12th of November 2010. The writer speaks very highly of themselves, they're somewhat of an egotistical narcissist. Whats interesting about this article is that the man behind these papers sees himself as a vigilante, someone who had to do the dirty work due to the failures of the educational system. They're eager not to miss an opportunity to patronise the professors that they're addressing.

The writer uses a belligerent tone as they as they are prepared to belittle not only students, but also professors. It is phrases like: "You would be amazed by the incompetence of your students' writing." that allow them to create a foundation for this condescending lecture. The writer asserts they're dominance by immediately undermining the professors ability to asses their students competence. They make it seem like they have all the answers and that their audience should just sit back and listen, since they don't have anything valuable to contribute in the first place. It is through this belligerent tone that the writer denigrates the students and professors, leaving no room for a conversation surrounding the moral ambiguity of his profession. This contrast with his claim that is his hope that "this essay will initiate such a conversation", referring to the detectability of plagiarism.

In the fifth paragraph, the writer employs enumeratio; where he lists all the different kind of work he's done. The purpose of this is to shock the reader. These run-on sentences seem never ending, causing the reader to feel the same way about the work he's done. He establishes this right from the beginning, hereby establishing his expertise.

To conclude, the writers tone and use of literary techniques act as building blocks that work jointly to establish the foundation which he uses to denigrate the student's and professors competence. Causing him to seem like the vigilante who did what had to be done, hereby dismissing a conversation about the ethical ambiguity of his work.