Catherine Rampell Analysis

My columnist, Catherine Rampell, writes with clear and distinguishable voice. This voice carries her pieces, giving each one the same qualities that define her writing. Regardless of topic, Rampell crafts her pieces with the same components: short intros, a witty voice, and direct quotations scattered in to add evidence and credibility. Through thorough examination of Rampell’s works, I found her writing to be very formulaic (though I’m sure this is true of a myriad of other columnists, especially considering the pressures on the industry.) Once I discovered her formula, my imitation began to write itself.

Staying true to Rampell’s style, I opened with a hook. Rampell forms her hooks in two ways: one being a question, while the other entails a vague, yet intriguing statement. I took the latter

These questions, some rhetorical and some out of genuine curiosity function differently depending on their placement in the piece. For instance, questions positioned in the middle of an article are typically answered by Rampell herself. In one article she asks, “How could either actually get their ambitious plans through?” She then immediately proposes a solution, which in this case was - sarcastically of course - a “political revolution” and “magical underpants gnomes.” I followed the same pattern in the middle of my imitation, in which I asked, “Didn’t they recognize the racism, stereotypes, and plain disrespect that come, as collateral damage, attached to the previous logos?” I then immediately answered with, “Of course they didn’t.” Additionally, like Rampell, I ended the imitation with an unanswered question. For this addition in my piece, I drew inspiration from Rampell’s “Low-wage Senate workers get a raise- and then the shaft,” in which she concluded with the pensive question, “Do they know, or do they not