Comparative Commentary: The Imperial War Museum (i)

Text 1 is a review taken from a website called www.tripadvisor.co.uk, where people are able to post their reviews on their experiences in order to provide information for others to use when deciding where to visit. The mode of this extract is written text. Text 1’s purpose is to provide information on the Imperial War Museum, with the intended audience being those interested in museum visits and, perhaps, war and history. The context of this text is the individual writer describing his or her own experience visiting the museum. Text 2 is an advertisement/guide taken from ‘Time Out’, including a short article containing instructions on visiting the museum. It is a multimodal text, containing two images and a written mode. The purpose of this text is to encourage people to take the time to visit the museum, targeting in particular people working in office jobs. The context is an instructive extract on the way to go about seeing the museum during a lunch break from work.

The texts share many commonalities. For example, both aim to attract more visitors to the museum. Text 1 does this through detailed descriptions; for example, ‘the exhibits do not glorify war, but help you understand the complexities and give an impression of English soldiers and citizens’ experiences’, as well as emphasizing that the museum is suitable for both adults and children. Text 2 describes the museum as a ‘perfect lunchtime escape’. This extract emphasizes the new attitude to life felt after seeing the museum. Additionally, the two extracts are aimed at people who are interested in war (albeit Text 1 encourages children to visit), and Text 2 addresses people who are in employment in central London.

Despite these similarities, there are numerous obvious differences between the texts. The tone employed in Text 2 is more informal than in Text 1, containing more humor and other stylistic features conveying familiarity. For example, the references to the TV series ‘Blackadder’ and ‘an M and S wrap on the tube’ suggest ‘coziness’, requiring a specific cultural awareness on the part of the reader to appreciate the allusion. Whilst Text 2 is a guide to how to go about visiting the museum, Text 1 focuses on what is in the exhibits, and the feelings experienced after seeing them. Moreover, the structure of text 2 differs from Text 1; Text 2 has many short paragraphs, including sub-headings and visuals. On the other hand, Text 1 appears as a single large paragraph. The structures seem to fit the purpose of each text; the shorter paragraphs and sub-headings of Text 2 make the instructions clearer, whilst the length and complexity of Text 1 make for a detailed descriptive account. Moreover, the structure and detail of Text 1 provide more formality than is apparent in Text 2.

The word choice of each writer contributes to his or her intended purpose. In Text 1, the opening sentence, highlighted in bold, suggests ‘you will be happy’. This immediately provides the reader the opportunity to adopt a positive attitude towards the museum, which is enhanced through the parlinguistic effect of bold text. There are many examples of the writer using descriptive language in Text 2 when discussing different aspects of the museum. For example, casually describing the tanks, planes, and boats as ‘cool’ and the Holocaust exhibition as ‘superb’ seem to entice the reader to visit the museum. Additionally, the use of the phrase, ‘this place will be fun!’, punctuated with an exclamation mark, ‘shouts’ to the reader, enhancing the positivity expressed about the museum. Also, the word ‘whizz’ highlights a major contention of the text, specifically that it can be seen in half an hour (although ‘whizz’ may also suggest fun). This idea is augmented in the written text within large visual image: ‘London in your lunch hour!’

The use of visual imagery in Text 2 is effective in capturing the reader’s attention. The large image, accompanied by a smaller map, reinforces the written text, putting the description into reality for the reader, as they no longer have to imagine what the museum looks like. The overhead image captures the museum for the reader, and the map identifies its exact location. The image depicts many people, suggesting to the reader that the museum is popular with visitors (perhaps during lunch time).

The two texts also differ in their use of stylistic features. In text 2, for example, the writer includes the word ‘bomb’, both describing, as a verb, a visitor’s movement around the museum, as well as making reference, as a noun, to the war itself. This clever play on words is attention grabbing and, again, intimates the haste at which a visitor can make progress through the museum. In text 2, the phrase, ‘maps, papers, letters etc, make the time period come alive’, drawing the reader’s attention to the extensive exhibits to be seen. The time period cannot literally be re-lived, but the listing of exhibits, including the vague ‘etc’, suggests that the museum contains many varied and interesting artifacts. There is also the use of a rhetorical question in text 2, where the writer polemically suggests, ‘it still doesn’t make any sense, does it?’ This direct address, dialogically involves the reader, keeping their interest, and prompting them to read on. Furthermore, the imperative, ‘sprint to the tube with a newfound appreciation of life’, reinforces the positive impact a visit to the museum may have on people.

Bold font is included in both texts. In text 1, the title, ‘if you like or want to learn WWI and WWII history, you will be happy’ draws attention to itself, addresses the reader synthetically through the repetition of the pronoun ‘you’, and sets the tone for the rest of the text. Similarly, in text 2, there are several examples of bolding, emphasizing key points, and enabling readers to easily navigate through the text. For example, the text begins with ‘Office. Tube. Horrors of War. Sandwich. Back to the office with a new outlook on life. An hour very well spent’; this summaries the linear simplicity of visiting the museum during lunch hour. Also the juxtaposition of ‘horrors of war’ and ‘sandwich’ suggests that lunchtime need not be a mundane experience, but can be a time to stimulate thinking, transcending everyday experience. Additionally, at the conclusion of the text, the friendly imperative to ‘tell us about perfect lunchtime escapes near your workplace’ reinforces to the reader, through the near collocation of pronouns ‘us’ and ‘you’, the apparent relationship established between themselves and the text/writer.

A significant difference between the two texts is the way in which they express different overall opinions on the museum. In text 1, two comparisons are made between the Imperial War Museum and other museums, and in both instances it is suggested that the Imperial War Museum is inferior. For example, the claim that ‘I would certainly see the Churchill War rooms over this museum’, leaves the reader in know doubt – expressed through the high modality of the sentence adverbial ‘certainly’ – of the writer’s strongly held subjective view. The writer, whilst not disliking the museum, has seen better ones. By contrast, text 2 reveals no negativity towards the museum; the writer suggests that it is ‘perfect’, and that is probably as good as it gets. It seems reasonable to suggest, however, that both texts view the museum with more or less positivity. Text 1 is very informative, and text 2 works to encourage lunchtime visitors.