TOW #13: The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

How far is too far with aggressive marketing?

http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2011/01/adhd-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

     How many children in the United States really have ADHD, not just mis-identified chronic laziness? It wouldn't actually matter (after all, it's their life) except that the drugs that treat ADHD are actually dangerous to those who don't have ADHD. In his essay, "The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder," Alan Schwarz asserts that normal impatience in children now leads many parents to justify giving potentially harmful drugs to their non-ADHD children following a suspiciously successful ADHD drug campaign. Alan Schwarz is a New York Times writer known for his focus on injuries (specifically concussions) in sports (particularly football) and his nomination for a Pulitzer prize. The advertisements in the campaigns Schwarz addresses claim that poor grades are a sign of an attention deficit disorder and therefore justify taking powerful stimulants such as Adderall or Focalin– which is, of course, false. And it's not like these pharmaceutical companies that market drugs such as Adderall or Focalin aim to hurt children; in fact, their goal is arguably more sinister: they're in it entirely for the money, meaning they could care less if a non-ADHD child uses an ADHD drug. 

     The primary reason that these companies can "get away" with over-marketing their product is because it's generally agreed upon that there is no definitive way to test for ADHD, meaning there's a lot left to interpretation, or misinterpretation in this case. Schwarz's purpose in writing this essay was to inform the audience, which includes all parents and ADHD/ADD people in the United States, that advertisements for drugs are just like advertisements for anything else; the advertiser just wants you to buy and use their product and they could generally care less whether or not it hurts you. Although Schwarz's message is cynical, it does hold some truth to it. Besides the obvious example, Schwartz means to show the reader how to be a consumer, and an educated one at that. 

     Schwarz uses statistics, anecdotes, and dramatic diction to inform his readers of the dark world of false marketing, particularly in such a serious context of potential drug harm and abuse. His use of statistics is apparent throughout his essay, as is his use of anecdotes. His dramatic diction is especially effective when he dissects, so to speak, how Adderall came to be called Adderall. He writes, "All. For A.D.D. A.D.D. for All. Adderall." I believe, without the slightest hint of a doubt, that Schwarz accomplished his purpose. The primary reason I believe this because, besides his use of rhetorical devices, he addresses the counterargument (that ADHD is an underrated and underdiagnosed disorder) in such a way that makes his argument seem even more legitimate, truly using the opposition's own forces as fuel for his argument. Overall, and interesting, well-written, effective essay. 

TOW #12: "Why love one but eat the other?"

Why Love One But Eat The Other?

An Advertisement by Mercy For Animals

This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners and animal enthusiasts.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/images/whyloveNYCBus.jpg

For many people, being a vegetarian simply isn't an option. For others, it's the only option. In an advertisement by Mercy For Animals, a non-profit organization, vegetarianism is projected as the logical, responsible, and emotionally "fair" option. Mercy For Animals is committed to spreading the idea of making animal-friendly (vegetarian) food choices through their various pro-vegetarian campaigns. In 2011, Mercy For Animals was named one of the most impactful organizations for animal welfare by Philanthropedia. One could argue that the ongoing debate between meat-seeking carnivores and animal-hugging herbivores has never been more intense. Every day, more and more information is surfacing about the controversial treatment of animals that are raised for food. This heart-wrenching advertisement attempts to sway meat-eaters towards the vegetarian path. Mercy For Animal's purpose of making and distributing this advertisement is to cast doubt into the minds of non-vegetarians. This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners, who might look at this ad and realize that their beloved animals aren't that different from those they eat, likely on a daily basis. Also, the creators of this ad were very careful with which animals they used– dogs are one of the most widely owned pets, and bacon (the pig) is very popular across America– which serves to broaden the audience of their advertisement. Juxtaposition is the primary device that this advertisement employs. Putting a well-loved pet right next to meat makes for a dramatic and effective ad. The large text saying "Why love one but eat the other?" adds to the drama of the ad, but it also reinforces the previously mentioned juxtaposition. It didn't need to say which animal each part of the question referred to, which works excellently off the viewer's previous knowledge. I believe this ad had ever success it could have with respect to formatting and phrasing, but I believe this ad is ineffective because of its content. Upon further thought, I rationalized and reasoned and came to an answer to the question posed: one is domesticated, one is not. After removing the suspense and thinking through the message, the ad loses it's "shine".

TOW #11: "Why Go Out?"

The book Sheila Heti uses in her speech to compare smoking and socialization.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/static/cs/uk/0/minisites/52books/fresh_starts/allen_carrs_easy_way_to_stop_smoking.html

Pajamas. Comfort. Relaxation. All of these things are associated with solitude, not socialization. In her brilliant speech to the audience of Trampoline Hall in New York in 2006, Sheila Heti addresses each audience member's introverted side. Can you actually "quit people" like you can quit smoking? Heti compares these two ideas while addressing the obvious topic of her speech: why go out? Heti is a Canadian writer and editor. At the University of Toronto, she studied art history and philosophy. She currently works for The Believer where she is Interviews Editor. With her audience established as introverts, or at the very least people with an introverted side to them, Heti aims to achieve two different purposes, one explicit, one implicit. She explicitly wants to give the reader an opportunity to ponder why we, namely the audience, do or do not seek out social interaction. Implicitly, Heti wants to make a statement about the human condition. She discusses the idea of how each individual fits into society. In her speech, besides how she actually presented the speech, Heti uses parallel structure, anecdotes, and analogies to share her message on social interaction. Her parallel structure is formed by her methodical approach to, for example, her answers to various self-imposed questions. The anecdote Heti describes is about a friend who advertises a social-skills class as a charades game night. Heti points out flaws and similarities between quitting smoking and quitting people through her recalling of a book she read about how to quit smoking. Of the devices Heti used, I believe she used the analogy most effectively. It struck me as humorous that Heti would compare avoiding social situations as "quitting people" as though people were destructive and addictive and necessary to your health. As Heti makes her claim, the reader realizes that people can be destructive (mean), that people can be addictive (loosing someone?), and that, maybe, people can be unnecessary.  

http://www.sheilaheti.net/whygoout2.html

TOW #10: "Up on the Roof"

Flourishing rooftop gardens (like this one) vastly improve the quality of city life in Philadelphia.

http://blog.gardenmediagroup.com/2012/08/roof-top-gardens-flourish-from-hong.html

In a world where cities blossom rapidly every day at the sacrifice of the environment, it is not uncommon to feel overwhelmed and depressed by the lack of nature. By destroying preexisting habitats only to create environmentally-deprecating centers for pollution, not only are we (being citizens of cities and inhabitants of Earth) helping to cause a (potential) global crisis, but we are making the world an arguably more depressing space. Verlyn Klinkenborg proposes a solution to an urban-environmental conflict through his investigation of rooftop gardens, called “living roofs,” that are present in forward-looking cities such as Vancouver. These garden are quickly taking root on the roofs of progressive cities across the world. Klinkenborg’s purpose in writing “Up on the Roof” is to inform the readers of the benefits of rooftop gardens in large cities. To demonstrate the pros of “living roofs” (with the idea that anything other than a roof with a garden is a “dead roof’) Klinkenborg uses examples to demonstrate how specific instances of these rooftop gardens work and improve city life. Also, Klinkenborg lays out his essay chronologically, moving through logos-generating reasons that explain, for example, how rooftop gardens “enhance the urban soundscape”, or how they are environmentally beneficial. Klinkenborg proposes an interesting concept in the form of a systematic argument in which he addresses both his side of the concept of green rooftops and the counterargument. For this reason, I believe he accomplished his purpose. I now see that cities don’t have to be epicenters of pollution; maybe natural environments and urban environments can actually coexist. City goers and environment lovers would constitute this article’s audience. This article is only of interest to a very specific type of audience, although the actual number of people it would interest (since cities are enormous) is much larger.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/05/green-roofs/klinkenborg-text

TOW #9: We Are All Plagiarists

With such a massive amount of information on the internet, what happens when two ideas are a little too similar?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2013/11/we-are-all-plagiarists.html

Plagiarism is a feared word. It implies something very sinister. How can everyone be a plagiarist? Robert Mankoff explores what plagiarism means, particularly in a world where so much has already been said. Mankoff believes that the difference between plagiarism and coincidence is intent. In a world with an infinite number of ideas spinning around the internet, how does one effectively avoid plagiarism? Unless, like an unfortunate cartoon editor described in Mankoff's essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," you sort through every last publication within a certain range, it's hard to be sure if you're plagiarizing. Mankoff's purpose is to highlight a gray area that has arisen. What qualifies as intent to do something, not just in terms of plagiarism, is sometimes indiscernible from coincidence. Although he doesn't quite make any remarks regarding how to deal with this confusion, Mankoff does use his essay to at least highlight its importance. Robert Mankoff is an author, editor, and has worked as a cartoonist for The New Yorker for twenty years. In addition to his memoir which is set to come out in 2014, Mankoff has written a book about cartooning. Between his experience and dedication, Mankoff is considerably credible. The audience of "We Are All Plagiarists" is explicitly "we"; Mankoff meant to reach readers of The New Yorker and possibly even readers and writers in general. Anyone who reads or creates content would fall into Mankoff's intended audience. Mankoff highlights the importance of intent versus coincidence using a very effective anecdote. It worked because he wasn't telling the reader why this one aspect is important, but rather he shows the reader. Also, the author uses an interesting strategy in which he used a google search of the title of his essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," to prove his point. Not surprisingly, Mankoff hasn't written the only "We Are All Plagiarists," although he uses that idea to make a point that the only reason why he technically wasn't plagiarizing was because he didn't do so purposefully.

TOW #8: IRB Post

School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where David Sedaris graduated from and taught a writing workshop at.

http://www.artandeducation.net/announcement/school-of-the-art-institute-of-chicago’s-saic-call-for-applications/

The next three story-like chapters in David Sedaris's Me Talk Pretty One Day dealt primarily with Sedaris's early adulthood and the adjustments he did (or didn't) make. The purpose of the last two of the three chapters was primarily to show that change can be difficult by showing two (of his own) reactions to change: one in which he adapts and one in which he doesn't. Sedaris uses his own perspective to help him achieve his purpose. Had he written Me Talk Pretty One Day from anything perspective other than first person, he would not have been able to adequately demonstrate his reaction to, for example, the death of his beloved cat. Only he could make the audience understand his feelings. In addition, Sedaris makes blatant allusions in his appropriately-named chapter "The Learning Curve," in which he describes his attempt as a new teacher to teach a writing class through the show One Life to Live. Although I wasn't familiar with the show, his reference worked well enough since I understood at the very least that it wasn't related to writing. This part of Me Talk Pretty One Day was directed at readers who were either fresh out of college or entering into their first "real" job. In both cases, the audience has to be in the process of adjusting to some huge change. Although David Sedaris is in fact credible (as established in previous posts), his credibility as a teacher rather than an author falters in these chapters. He struggles to properly teach a college course on writing. This matters little overall, though, since Sedaris is previously proved to be credible. Sedaris definitely accomplished his purpose if only because I could relate to several of his experiences and feelings, such as his love for his cat. The main reason Sedaris was able to show that change is all about how you react and adjust to it is because he references and draws on so many familiar feelings and cultural aspects, such as the loss of a pet.

TOW #7: "Last Meals of Executed Innocent Men"

Notice in particular the color scheme of this advertisement.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/last-meals-of-executed-innocent-men

Amnesty International made this advertisement sharply-defined and well focused to center the reader's attention. Before even reading the text accompanying the image of the prisoner's food tray, judgements are automatically made about the meal. It appears unappetizing and bare; certainly not something anyone would want as an important meal. Once the viewer reads the text underneath the image, a sort of shock-value is added. Amnesty International used minimalism, viewer's prejudice, and shock-value to help this advertisement spread awareness surrounding the injustice that is the death penalty. This image is an argument against the death penalty. It takes one of the primary arguments against the death penalty– chiefly, the idea that an innocent person could end up dead– and translates it into a daunting view into the victim's sufferings. This advertisement was formulated and distributed by Amnesty International, an independent organization whose primary focus is on human rights. In 1977, the organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Produced by Amnesty International in Puerto Rico, this advertisement was included in a series of four images entitled "Last Meals of Executed Innocent Men". This purpose of this advertisement is quite obvious: Amnesty International wanted to, if not just convince viewers to side with them, at least provoke a response within the reader. This series of advertisements (and this advertisement in particular) was composed for Puerto Ricans. The extended audience is anyone involved with Amnesty International, and hopefully those who support the death penalty as well. This advertisement was especially effective thanks to the coloring the advertising team chose. I do not believe it is a coincidence that the tray is orange; since neon orange feels very insincere and artificial, it makes this man's last meal even more depressing. The color scheme and the way the text was phrased below the image were particularly effective.

TOW #6: "Unusable Words"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/10/unusable-words.html

Thesauruses: both widely used and commonly misused. 

Source: http://theharperstudio.com/2009/07/logomaniacs-verbolatrists-and-epeolatrists-rejoice-the-world’s-largest-thesaurus-is-coming-to-town/

While students and teachers alike are generally eager to replace weak words with strong synonyms, thesaurus users must be wary of words that– stated or not– are considered unusable. Brad Leithauser explains why certain words contradict themselves and how others have simply been overused. In "Unusable Words", Leithauser explores an interesting idea; he discusses how words can be unusable. Certain words, called auto-antonyms, have two contradicting meanings. When used, auto-antonyms are sometimes too confusing to actually help the author and the reader share an idea. This essay was written for students, writers, teachers, and just about anyone else who would ever need to use a thesaurus. The author's purpose is to inform readers about the dangers of using certain words. Knowingly or not, writers can put readers in the precarious situation where the meaning of a word could be one of two contradicting meanings. Leithauser aims to help writers help readers avoid situations such as these. Leithauser uses anecdotes from his time as a teacher, irony, and classical examples to warn readers of unusable words. He describes how words that were once considered inappropriate for a classroom setting were now perfectly reasonable, showing the reader that words can go from unusable to usable or vice versa. He uses irony to show how vague words that are auto-antonyms can be. Lastly, Leithauser proves to the reader that words can also become unusable when a famous figure has already essentially trademarked them. As a poet, author, essayist, and teacher, Brad Leithauser graduated from Harvard Law School. He is a part of the writing seminars presented by Johns Hopkins University. He has written seven poetry collections, seven novels, and one essay collection, all of which make him qualified to talk about unusable words. Leithauser certainly convinced me to learn a little bit about a new word before using it, if only because I want to make sure it has the desired effect and isn't already compromised either because it's an auto-antonym or because a famous author has already "claimed" it.

TOW #5: "Will Work for Inspiration"

The evolution of New York

Source: http://amazingstuff.co.uk/places/the-world-now-and-then/#.UltXexYfpSU

While New York still has an exciting, enticing reputation, few may actually understand (and even fewer may expect) the change in New York's culture. David Byrne writes "Will Work for Inspiration" as a longtime citizen of New York and an artist whose band has deep roots in New York. Byrne is a musician, director, artist, and writer who has written nine books and produced seventeen albums, and directed six films. Upon reading more of his essays, I realized that Byrne has a pessimistic view of the contemporary world in comparison to the 1970s and 1980s. He writes about the progression of culture in New York City while focusing on the creative crowds that have always been drawn to NYC and how the city compares to other highly "ranked" cities. The motive of the author in writing "Will Work for Inspiration" is multi-tiered– Byrne wants to inform readers of the sad state of New York's cultural environment and to persuade any and all New York residents that something needs to be done in order to ensure that New York retains its splendor. I definitely believe that David Byrne accomplished his initial purpose. Although my interest (since, to be fair, I am included in his audience) in New York hasn't changed all that much after reading "Will Work for Inspiration", I now feel like I've been enlightened regarding the true state of New York. The primary technique he used that appealed to me was his vivid comparisons. This article was written for a narrow audience; however, the actual audience is much broader. The author intended to write to New Yorkers and soon-to-be New Yorkers, but Byrne more generally speaks about the preservation of (any) culture. To achieve his bold purpose, Byrne employed several rhetorical strategies. He uses statistics to generate logos which prove to the reader that New York may not be all it's built up to be. In addition, he uses comparison, which evokes logos and pathos. To establish ethos, he demonstrates his knowledge of New York, making the essay overall a worthwhile read.

Article source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/07/new-york-1percent-stifles-creative-talent

TOW #4: IRB Post

Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris

This far through Me Talk Pretty One Day, David Sedaris has covered several topics. He has, respectively, talked about his speech impediments as a child, his attempt at learning how to play the guitar, his father's career as an engineer, his short-lived life as an artist, his younger brother's upbringing in contrast to his own, and his family's history of pets. Each topic has evolved around Sedaris's childhood and young-adulthood. This collection of short memoirs follows David Sedaris's childhood through a somewhat cynical lens. David Sedaris's external purpose in writing Me Talk Pretty One Day is to shed an interesting and entertaining light on everyday experiences. His internal purpose could be to show that perspective means more than the actual event. This book was written for anyone who can appreciate humor and needs to see that the same event can be understood and remembered differently. Potentially anyone can read and enjoy this book. In order to achieve his purpose, Sedaris employs various rhetorical devices to generate logos and pathos in particular. He uses sarcasm to make his life seem more melancholy, and since readers (and people in general) are entertained by despair, it only serves to hook readers. Also, Sedaris uses first person, which helps the reader connect with the ideas expressed in his essay. Lastly, he varies sentence structure to keep the reader interested. All of these techniques make the book more entertaining and prove that perspective dictates the outcome of an event (more so than the actual event itself). David Sedaris has (at least to this point) succeeded at entertaining me and helping me to understand the power of perspective. He did this through humor and excellent control of the English language. He uses a certain melancholic type of humor which works perfectly. Me Talk Pretty One Day is a number one National Bestseller. The author, David Sedaris, is an American humorist and author who has been nominated to receive a Grammy Award for his achievements.

TOW #3: "Texting and Driving in Colombia: El Colombiano's Take"

Texting and Driving in Colombia: El Colombiano's Take

http://www.sortrature.com/24-clever-print-ads/

El Colombiano, the most broadly-read newspaper in the second most populated district of Colombia (the Antioquia Department) published this advertisement; consequentially, it has the potential to be very far-reaching. The newspaper is part of the Latin America Newspaper Association, meaning it is one of the fourteen leading newspapers of South America. Since texting and driving has become a major issue, this popular Colombian magazine decided to make it clear to its readers how dangerous texting and driving is. This advertisement comments on the growing problem with having a smart phone and a destination: you can't reach for both at the same time. One of the leading causes of car crashes has become texting and driving, and this image discusses the problem and responds to it. The purpose of this advertisement is to project a clear message: using your smart phone while driving isn't smart. Don't text and drive, because you'll crash. Although El Colombiano undoubtedly achieved their purpose, their advertisement wasn't clear at first glance. Just casually skimming the ad, I didn't immediately understand what the ad wanted to advertise, but upon really trying to understand it, it was very effective and clear. I think the main appeals generated are ethos and logos, in particular because the iPhone symbol is well-known and because the ad is clever. In order for El Colombiano to discourage texting and driving, their advertising committee had to employ several rhetorical strategies to cater to a younger iPhone-tethered generation. One such strategy is establishing a single focus. Everything other than the little iPhone "slide to unlock" image is gray and out of focus. This directs the viewer's attention to exactly where the advertiser wants it. Also, it makes the center focus seem much more important. Additionally, El Colombiano used a well-known icon (the iPhone slide bar) and tweaked it to support their purpose. The audience of this advertisement was originally only readers of El Colombiano. However, this clever advertisement quickly became popular outside of the Colombia, and so its actual audience became much larger than its intended audience. 

TOW #2: Supreme Court Judges

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/opinion/segall-supreme-court-flaws/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Four of these judges are over 70 years old. How old are they supposed to remain competent?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

This op-ed was written in mid-September of this year, just a few days ago, in the wake of many powerful rulings that are set to be decided after a congressional recess. The timing of this essay is key. The author, Eric Segall, is a law professor at Georgia State University’s College of Law. He therefore has a very qualified opinion when it comes to law. He has written extensively on the Constitution and the court system; he writes op-eds, essays, and law review articles. In his opinion essay, the author argues that the Supreme Court is not operating to its fullest potential by focusing on the flaws in the judicial system. Segall's purpose is clear: the Supreme Court is heavily flawed. He suggests problems and offers fixes. To achieve his purpose, Segall uses all three appeals. Ethos is generated for him in the preface; pathos and logos are generated as he lists and explains his reasoning. Additionally, Segall uses words like "our" and "we", letting the reader join his argument. He invites the reader to care about the way their country functions. With his credentials, Segall could have written a complex, jargon-riddled piece decipherable only by other law professors. Instead, he tried to reach a larger audience. Although his immediate audience is the average CNN reader, his op-ed has the potential to reach much farther. His extended (and likely intended) audience is people of power in the US government. The average person does not have the power to change the Supreme Court (Segall included), but maybe a well thought out, wide-reaching article could help plant an idea. The author effectively made me care about a topic I don't tend to care much about. His appeal to logos really drove his idea home; a lifetime is too long of a time to expect any one person to be competent, so why should some of the most important people in our judicial system be expected to be so? Even though I don't agree entirely, he succeeded at making me care about the Supreme Court.

TOW #1: "The three scariest words: I don't know"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/opinion/cohen-i-dont-know/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
300-350 words

In classrooms across America, fear is spreading. Children are becoming afraid of being wrong; they're starting to fear ignorance. Students have been taught that answer is more important than the thought process. The pressure to know the right answer is spreading from students in classrooms as far as politicians in society. Under No Child Left Behind, enacted in 2001, Leah Hager Cohen now fears that there's too much emphasis placed on memorization in place of inquiry. Children– and consequentially, adults– feel unable to admit that they don't understand, to utter just three simple words: "I don't know". Cohen's purpose in writing "The three scariest words: I don't know" is to convince the reader that ignorance shouldn't be feared, but rather embraced and helped. This intended reader of this article is the general public. When Cohen writes, she emphasizes that it's "our fear of ignorance", not just students's or politicians's. To achieve her purpose, Cohen uses first person to connect with the reader. In fact, she picks on herself to point out problems that other people wouldn't necessarily want to be accused of having or causing– which only helps her to "break the ice" with the reader. Also, she uses italics four times throughout her article to reinforce the importance of her purpose. She really reinforces her emphasis. Leah Hager Cohen has written 10 books (five novels and five nonfiction books), In addition, she currently holds the Jenks Chair in Contemporary American Letters at the College of the Holy Cross. Cohen certainly achieved her purpose. She used drawn-out, explained logic to lead the reader down her trail of thought. Additionally, she used simple language to reach out to people of all walks of life, since she explains fear of ignorance is common in many people. Based on Cohen's credentials, it's very clear that she could have many her essay more confusing and flowery; the fact that she didn't only shows how she successfully shared her purpose with her audience.

IRB #1 Introduction: Me Talk Pretty One Day

"Me Talk Pretty One Day" is a collection of short stories by David Sedaris. It's broken up into two parts; the first of which discusses his life prior to moving to Normandy, France, while the second describes his life in Normandy. David Sedaris is an American humorist and author. I chose to read "Me Talk Pretty One Day" because I love David Sedaris's sense of humor. I first found out about him on the podcast "This American Life" (and instantly wanted to hear more about him), so I was very excited to see that one of his books was recommended on a list of 100 great nonfiction books. I hope to understand how to incorporate humor into my work while staying focused and achieving my purpose.

When Writer Speak

Maybe all writers are supposed to do is to write well.

Source: Lilley, Kathryn. Writer Using Quill. Digital image. The Kill Zone: Reader Friday: What Kind of Writer Are You? N.p., 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

While pondering why a great writer would need notes to participate in a great discussion, Arthur Krystal realizes that writers only need to be writers. Krystal, the author of When Writers Speak, has written for many highly-ranked newspapers and publications such as The New Yorker, Harper's, and The New York Times Book Review among others. He is a published author who has written three books. His essay, When Writers Speak, is about how writers are not necessarily communications experts and should not be treated as such. Anyone could read this essay and draw applicable meaning from it. The audience doesn't have to include the verbally-clumsy writer it was written about. This is a very far-reaching essay with a universal audience. To achieve his purpose, Krystal uses an antithesis-like layout on the second page; he presents Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist, who argues that when a professional writer sits down to write, they deliberately have to be clear. Additionally, he reasons that writers generally have editors. Krystal debunks Pinker by saying that he isn't only a better as a writer, he's less boring, too. Since entertainment can't be edited into a paper, Pinker's argument is invalid. Krystal also uses syntactic fluency. The length and complexity of his sentences vary, making him easy to follow and proving that he is a smart writer. He reasons he is not smart "in person" because "different words and phrases would be generated" (Krystal 3). Krystal's purpose in writing When Writers Speak is abundantly clear. He wants to tell the reader that it is unreasonable to ask a specialist to work outside their specialty. The author not only achieved his purpose, he ingrained it in the reader. He made the reader feel appreciated, almost as if anything more than just doing their job was excessive and reward-worthy. Writing in the first person made him very relatable and understandable, which worked perfectly. He didn't try to make the average person into a reader, and he didn't force the reader to do anything other than read. His writing paralleled his purpose.

Irreconcilable Dissonance

With divorce rates so high, Brian Doyle investigates a couple reasons why couples are splitting.

Source: Wood, Sarah. Wedding Cake Split. Digital image. Free Wood Post RSS. N.p., 26 June 2013. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.

Having been happily married to his only wife for years, Brian Doyle witnesses other couples around him getting divorced for what seem like petty reasons. He decides that the spectrum between married and divorced is very large, leaving room for the growing potential for divorce in every marriage. Irreconcilable Dissonance discusses divorces, and why once-married couples chose to get them. Brian Doyle, explores some bizarre explanations for divorce, including one couple that got a divorce "on the grounds of irreconcilable dissonance". Tiny anecdotes like these help Doyle show readers that divorce can happen at any time for almost any reason. They offer glimpses into half a dozen marriages that end in divorce. Also, the author ends the essay with a clever aphorism formed by a contradiction: "The instant there is no chance of death is the moment of death", where divorce is death. It leaves something with the reader to think about and therefore results in them contemplating divorce, and how accurate Doyle's point is. This essay was written for anyone who is married, considering marriage, or considering divorce. Doyle's purpose in writing Irreconcilable Dissonance is to inform readers that divorce is always imminent. Although Doyle shows the reader that divorce is common and can happen for nearly every reason, his true purpose is to convince readers that divorce is a slippery slope and actually not to be taken lightly. At the University of Portland, Brian Doyle is the editor of Portland Magazine. Brian Doyle is also an author who graduated from Notre Dame University before working for various magazine and newspaper companies as an editor. He is currently an editor for Portland Magazine, an award-winning quarterly magazine, at the University of Portland. The author accomplished his purpose using reverse psychology. By writing about ridiculous explanations for divorce, he leaves the reader feeling like divorcing for such a reason would be foolish. Since most people do not want to be considered foolish, they will likely avoid divorcing their spouse unless there's a legitimate reason. Without realizing it, Doyle lets the reader convince themselves of his purpose.

Guy Walks into a Bar Car

David Sedaris's regret is intensified after an encounter on a long train ride.

Source: Luebben, Craig. Andres Marin Escalando. Digital image. 2011 Ice World Cup in Russia. N.p., 25 Mar. 2011. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.

Only David Sedaris can effectively compare instant oatmeal to love; similes like these help him to drive his point home. Also, he writes satirically, in which his ridicule is generally directed at himself. His use of satire proves to the reader how he's a bit foolish, which supports his purpose in writing Guy Walks into a Bar Car: to convince the reader not to make his fear-filled mistake. Sedaris, a young homosexual, writes about a 19-hour train ride in which he meets an alcoholic named Johnny on his way to visit his boyfriend of six years. The ride actually results in their break-up. Regardless, Johnny and Sedaris bond over alcohol and drugs. After they part, Sedaris reflects (with regret) on his previous pseudo-relationship with a Lebanese man he met while traveling in Europe. His purpose in writing this essay was to help others avoid what he believes was a mistake. He traveled, met someone he felt an instant connection with, and when offered a new life with this someone, turned it down. Even years later, he still feels regret. His purpose is to persuade readers to accept what he declined. Although this essay describes a homosexual romance, it's more broadly about regret. David Sedaris discusses how he feels about travel, and the idea that opportunities for relationships are valuable. This essay was written for people who are shy and might have difficulty accepting unique offers due to fear. A humorist, radio contributor, and author, Sedaris was nominated to win a Grammy Award. Five of his essays, from 1997-2008, became New York Times Best Sellers, and not without reason. David Sedaris achieved his purpose brilliantly. His essay is hilarious, heartfelt, and purposeful. Usually,  mistakes are made before lessons are learned. Sedaris uses comedy and regret to eliminate the need for mistakes, since he believes there aren't enough chances to waste one with a mistake. His final message: be open to possibilities.

Gyromancy

Van Gogh, who cut off his ear, serves Ron Rindo's introduction to Ménière's disease since Ménière's involves problems with the ear.

Source: Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear. 1889. Van Gogh Gallery. Vincent Van Gogh Gallery. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

Ron Rindo is a middle-aged husband who suffers from Ménière's, in which there is excess fluid in the inner ear. This affects the vestibular system, which is responsible for the body's sense of balance; once thrown off, the body becomes susceptible to vertigo. Ron Rindo's Ménière's symptoms have lasted since his 20s. In Gyromancy, Rindo reasons that Van Gogh might have suffered from Ménière's, and attacks of immobilizing vertigo, through his own personal experiences. Ron Rindo received his B.A. from Carroll College and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He currently teaches American Literature, Fiction Writing, and Nature Writing at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He was recognized by the Wisconsin Library Association for Outstanding Achievement twice. If anyone is qualified to describe such a disease, it's Rindo. The purpose of Gyromancy is to describe a case of severe Ménière's disease with a particular focus on vertigo through personal experience and a theory about a well-known figure. This essay was written for people with minimal knowledge on Ménière's disease or vertigo. Since uncontrolled vertigo is not something one can easily mimic (and only 40% of adults have experienced it at least once), Rindo must employ various rhetorical strategies to accurately inform the reader about the feeling of vertigo. One technique he uses is vivid imagery. He uses words with very strong, clear connotations such as "chaos" and ""disorienting". Additionally, he uses similes and the phrase "as if" several times to describe otherwise indescribable feelings. I believe Ron Rindo accomplished his purpose. When I began Gyromancy, I had never heard of Ménière's before, knew little about vertigo, and had an average knowledge of Van Gogh. The author built the essay off something I was familiar with: when Van Gogh cut off his ear. From there, Rindo ventured into unfamiliar territory using flawless transitions, making him easy to follow. When he  explored the medical cause of Ménière's, I already understood of what I was reading, so it didn't interrupt my comprehension or interest.

The Murder of Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy and his wife, Sonya, had a strained relationship, but after he saw her digging through his personal items, he had had enough. He boarded a train and bought tickets as he went to try to lose Sonya. Within a few days, what was once a mild cough became a fever for Tolstoy. Once he reached Astapovo, he became too ill to continue. This is the room where Tolstoy died on November 7. His daughters were the last people he saw before he died, since his wife, Sonya, was not allowed to see him. She waited for him just outside in a train car. She had decided that if Tolstoy dared to try to flee, she would hire a private detective to follow him.

Source: Finegold, Leo. Room in Astapovo Where Tolstoy Died. Digital image. The Last Days of Leo Tolstoy. N.p., 19 Aug. 1999. Web. 20 Aug. 2013.

The Murder of Leo Tolstoy is a memoir-style essay that discusses Tolstoy's life and relationships and how they might have contributed to his death. Elif Batuman sets out to challenge the traditional notion that Leo Tolstoy's death was natural. In the essay, she attends the International Tolstoy Conference in Yasnaya Polyana, where she decides to write a field-research proposal hoping to earn a travel grant of $2,500. Batuman is an American author and journalist who graduated from Harvard University and later earned a doctorate in comparative literature from Stanford University. She also won a Whiting Award; these awards are given annually to ten writers that show remarkable talent early in their career. Elif Batuman is evidently credible. Her pupose was to investigate whether Leo Tolstoy died of natural causes or was murdered. Batuman subtly aims to persuade readers of the latter. Batuman uses various rhetorical devices to investigate Tolstoy's death and to convince the reader that Tolstoy might have been murdered. Several times in her essay, the author uses rhetorical questions to force the reader to come to the same conclusion she came to about a particular piece of evidence. This proves useful because it almost lets the reader convice his/herself that Batuman's idea is correct. With that said, The Murder of Leo Tolstoy was written for people with a particular interest in Tolstoy and his work or for people who appreciate a connection-based analysis of someone's life and death. This essay was thoroughly entertaining and well written in a way that allowed Batuman to accomplish her purpose. She made many conclusions that made sense in light of her evidence and thought process. Batuman did not set out to prove that Leo Tolstoy died one way or another, she simply set out to investigate how he might have died. In that light, Batuman investigated in a way that made her idea that Tolstoy was murdered not necessarily proven-without-a-doubt, but at least leaving some solid reasoning as to why Tolstoy didn't definitely die of natural causes.

Source: 

Finegold, Leo. "The Last Days of Leo Tolstoy: Chapter III." The Last Days of Leo Tolstoy: Chapter                 III. N.p., Aug. 1999. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.