TOW #30: Letter to a New APELC Student

Dear future APELC student,

     First, I want to congratulate you on choosing to take AP English Language and Composition; it's a challenging course. Understand that this course will be different from other English courses you have taken in the past, and not only because it is an AP course. For one thing, there was a lot more writing involved, as is to be expected. But along with having more in-class writing assignments, you will have more interesting, meaningful prompts. Rather than being graded on how accurate you were, you will be graded based on how well you can present and support your ideas. There really are no wrong answers. Also, APELC will expose you to a new type of writing which, if you are like me, you will have never read before. Likewise, the projects will be different in that they will be more based on your interpretation of someone else's ideas rather than just someone else's ideas. Along with every other aspect, the readings will get harder. Whereas before you might have been able to read a passage and immediately pull the "right" idea from it, it will not be so easy this year and that may not even be the point of reading the passage.
     As for advice, I would say that it is important to keep up with the readings and you want to start into take-home essays and projects as soon as you can. But in this course, I would also recommend that you try to complete for understanding and not just for completion. Although sometimes it is necessary to finish something simply so you get credit, there are more important things at stake in this course. I found that the skills I learned in this class, such as the ability to recognize different types of claims, were worth more than the informal credit sometimes given or the ability to participate in class. On the rare occasion that I could not finish the assignment meaningfully, I did sometimes end up skimming the material or ideas, and I always regretted it. If I could give you, incoming APELC students, any one piece of advice it would be to complete assignments for understanding rather than for completion.
     Since this is an AP course, I'm sure you already understand that there may be obstacles and difficulties. What you absolutely need to understand is that it is not a bad thing to experience these obstacles; the only bad thing would be to not try to overcome them. You must try not to let yourself be defeated. And what Mr. Yost says at the beginning of the year is true: some APELC students will get lower grades than they are used to. What is important to remember is that you are not defined by one lower-than-usual grade. I even believe that those who experience more obstacles could potentially be more successful in this course so long as they can overcome the obstacles and learn from them. What you will find is that the obstacles do not disappear, but rather you will get better at dealing with them.
     I personally thought APELC was worth taking, and I am glad you did, too. Even though I do not think I want to be an English major or even minor, I do not regret taking this course, for APELC helped me in almost every other subject. If you work hard and stay confident this year, I have no doubt that you will not only improve your writing and reading style, but also enjoy the interesting topics Mr. Yost introduces to you.

Sincerely,
Former APELC-er Rachel Misbin

P.S. Go all out on toga day, because it's worth it. Togas are both comfortable and fashionable.

TOW #29: Documentary Rhetorical Analysis Part 2

     It is easy to regard someone who is wealthy as content, even fulfilled, and without serious hardship. In today's society in particular, those without wealth are sometimes resented because of the belief that they have no "real" problems. Director Lauren Greenfield would discount that belief. In fact, one of the claims made in Greenfield's documentary The Queen of Versailles is that having wealth does not automatically make one person better than another. Greenfield contrasts Mr. and Mrs. Siegel, in all of their lavish wealth, against their friends, family, and employees, and the result is blatant: whereas the Siegels are very wealthy, they lack the humility, class, sense of fulfillment, and positive morals that the people around them possess. In other words, the Siegels are wealthy but are otherwise no better, if not worse, than the people around them who are not wealthy. Their wealth does not solve all of their problems.
     I strongly agree with Greenfield's claim about wealth and happiness, particularly because I've seen evidence of her claim in my own experiences, observations, and readings. The first thing that comes to my mind is the ever growing list of sayings that all essentially say the same thing: money cannot make you happy. Everyone from Benjamin Franklin to Nelson Mandela have warned of the falsified satisfaction money can provide. I cannot help but believe that Greenfield's claim must be true if only because of its large number of wise supporters. In a way, Greenfield is supporting the claims made by the various people who came to the same conclusion before her. 
     Additionally, I have experienced the validity of Greenfield’s claim in my own life. The satisfaction I get from getting a new item is never as great as the satisfaction I get when I am in the company of people I enjoy, or when I perform an act of kindness, such as volunteering. The immediate happiness from a purchase is fleeting; the only way to maintain such a happiness is to continually spend through what some might call an addiction. However, as with every addiction, the abuser is eventually numbed to what once brought them happiness. “Purchased happiness” must eventually run out, whereas interactive, non-stationary happiness can never be expended.

     While Greenfield claims that wealth and contentment are not necessarily correlated, I might even argue that they are inversely correlated past a certain point. After that point, wherever it may be, as you become wealthier you also become less and else content with your life. For example, in the case of the infamous King Midas from Greek mythology, who could never find satisfaction from his wealth. Though he was wealthy, King Midas reached the point where enough was not enough, and eventually he dedicated himself to accumulating more wealth by wishing for a “golden touch” to turn everything into gold. His resulting wealth cost him everything he cared for, including his health, his daughter, and his happiness. Just as with the Siegels from The Queen of Versailles, wealth did not guarantee happiness and positive morals. 
     There are many cases in which wealthy people are not by any means decent, happy people. Regardless, there will always be people who believe that money is the necessary to achieve happiness, classiness, and positivity. Greenfield's The Queen of Versailles rightly claims otherwise.

TOW #28: Documentary Rhetorical Analysis Part 1

        Throughout America's history, there has existed an "American dream," characterized by a physical and emotional manifest destiny. Some have achieved the manifest destiny by expanding to America's west coast, but for the Siegels, manifest destiny means something else entirely. In The Queen of Versailles, a documentary directed and produced by Lauren Greenfield, it involves redefining luxury. The Queen of Versailles details the lives of the Siegel family before and after the 2008 financial crisis struck. The "queen" referenced in the title refers to Jackie Siegel, resort tycoon David Siegel's pageant wife, and her ceaseless obsession with wealth and beauty. David Siegel was the lavish owner of the now-failing Westgate Resorts company. The main subject and source of conflict of the film is the family's decision to build the Versailles house, modeled after the actual Palace of Versailles built for Louis XIV several hundred years ago. Had the Versailles house been completed, it would have been the most expensive privately held home in America. About halfway into the film, the 2008 crisis hit, leaving once-billionaire David Siegel and his family "struggling" to hold onto their partially-finished Versailles house. The remainder of the film follows the family as they try to hold onto their assets. Meanwhile, the Siegel's friends, employees, and relatives truly struggle to hold onto their homes, emphasizing the ridiculousness of the Siegel's situation.
     The purpose of The Queen of Versailles rings loud and clear, so much so that by the end of the documentary, the Siegels themselves begin to hear the ringing, too. The purpose is to mock the idea of excessive decadence and wealth. To achieve this purpose, the director, Greenfield, uses contrasting characters, ironic music, and hyperbole. Greenfield's use of contrasting characters proves especially effective throughout the documentary. There are two very different types of characters Greenfield features: those who are desperately poor and those who are overtly and excessively wealthy. The poor include Jackie Siegel's family and high school friend as well as the Siegel's Filipino nanny. For example, just after the financial crisis of 2008, Jackie Siegel's best high school friend calls to tell Jackie that her home is being foreclosed while Jackie empathizes from her lavish bedroom which is nearly the size of her friend's entire home. Another example of this contrast occurs when Greenfield focuses in on the Siegel's primary nanny, Virginia, who was originally from the Philippines and has not seen her own children for eleven years because she cannot afford to visit them. The Siegels, in comparison, look foolish and cruel in contrast to Virginia. To further emphasize this contrast, Greenfield shows Virginia's makeshift home, which is actually just a shed-sized playhouse for the Siegel's children, followed by the Siegel's enormous mansion. By comparison to everyone around them, the Siegels are classless, rude, wealthy people who fake empathy for those less fortunate than them.
     Greenfield's use of music has a profound effect on the tone of the documentary. Just as though they were the royal owners of the real Versailles residence, the Seigels waddle around to classical music that might have been suitable background music for Louis XIV himself. For the Siegels, however, this music only serves to point out the ridiculousness of their situation. At several points during the film, the audience sees Jackie Siegel, teetering in high heels, wearing tacky clothing, sporting dreadfully heavy yet ineffective makeup to music that would have been fit for her exact opposite. Whereas classical music generally implies wealth and class, in The Queen of Versailles it highlights the wealth and lack of class. This draws a distinction between wealth and class, illustrating the idea that they do not come hand-in-hand. Although they are wealthy, the Siegels are classless, emphasizing the meaninglessness of wealth. By the end of the film, the audience feels more respect for the financially "poorer" characters and distaste for the Siegels. Additionally, Greenfield uses a special type of hyperbole to achieve her film's purpose. Although she might not have intended to do so, the director depicts every theme not with twinkling lights, but with flashing neon signs, so to speak. To demonstrate the emotional chaos the Siegels endure despite their wealth, Greenfield depicts actual chaos, in which the family's animals are literally running wild and dying. To demonstrate the Siegel's shift in attitude regarding their wealth, Greenfield films ugly, bleak weather along with the character's routine interactions. The effect is very blunt, making it very hard for the viewer not to see Greenfield's point. All things considered, Greenfield achieved her purpose very effectively.

TOW #27: TOW Reflection

In the first TOWs I wrote, I stuck to a certain format; I answered all of the questions separately and then I tried to blend them together into a cohesive TOW as demonstrated by my first marking TOWs, such as TOW #10. This was not as successful as the format I used later in my TOWs, which was much less structured. Also, I noticed that as I slowly abandoned my routine, I also began to write more concisely and artfully. In TOW #22, for example, I used mini transitions to move from idea to idea, which was something I had never done before. I believe I've mastered the writing of introductions and conclusions. Looking back, it has become much easier for me to transition into my idea from nothing and end in a reflective, interesting way. At first, my TOWs were a bit choppy since I had no viable way of introducing and concluding them. Reading my third most recent TOWs compared to my first TOWs, this is where is see the most improvement. Despite my progress, however, I could still improve my ability to write clearly. I tend to write in a way that sounds a bit awkward, and although I think I have improved on my tone throughout this year, I still have some progress to make. I even noticed that I wrote in a way that we'd discussed in class as not so good. In my tenth TOW, for example, I used a double negative, writing "it is not uncommon." I still write in a way that can sound a bit clumsy, so I would still like to improve my tone and stylistic voice. Overall, I definitely did benefit from these assignments considering that I've expanded my horizons in my search for good TOWs. I've also learned to analyze both visual and written texts more effectively. I did not benefit considering the fact that I did not consistently analyze the texts as much as I could have.

TOW #26: "Team Spirit"

College sports, like professional sports, are televised, but college athletes, unlike professional athletes, are not paid. 

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/05/12/140512taco_talk_gopnik

   Throughout history, there has been extensive debate over who should receive more money: the overseer or the worker? This same debate has arisen regarding college sports, particularly college football, bringing with it even more issues to consider with college sports. In his article "Team Spirit," Adam Gopnik proposes a couple of changes in the world of college sports. The purpose of "Team Spirit" is to convince readers, athletes, coaches, and colleges to consider changing how athletes transition from the high school sports career to the major league sports career without the need for college, which he argues is pointless anyway since "academic departments... offer non-courses to student athletes who may not even be fully literate" just to allow them to play at their college. To accomplish his purpose, Gopnik uses various examples, rhetorical questions, and analogies. 
     Gopnik references Northwestern University to explain the inequity between the players and the coaches. He cities that Northwestern made two hundred and thirty-five million dollars between 2003 and 2012 from their football program alone; however, players are still not given concussion-testing and inclusive medical coverage. Readers are likely to feel empathy for the football players at Northwestern University because this example generates pathos. This example illustrates how truly unfair the world of college sports, thus supporting Gopnik's idea of reforming college sports. 

     Additionally, Gopnik lets his readers come to his same conclusion by strategically using rhetorical questions. After mentioning the seven million dollar per season paycheck of the coach of the University of Alabama's football team, Gopnik asks "Shouldn’t those who do the work share the wealth?" The result is a dramatic contrast: wealth against poverty, health against illness, the one percent against the ninety-nine percent, all of which Gopnik's readers already have more than likely already thought about, just not yet in relation to college football. 

     By using analogies, Gopnik appeals to readers, such as myself, who do not entirely understand the world of college sports. Gopnik compares college football to a drama program. If the drama program's musical earned a lot of money, enough to pay the teachers involved quite well, it would seem reasonable to pay the student actors involved, although then it wouldn't just be a school drama program. I, at least, can say that this analogy helped me to understand the real conflict with college sports. Overall, Gopnik effectively accomplished his purpose in my opinion.

TOW #25: Bose noise reduction headphones advertisement

      Sometimes exaggeration is necessary to sell a product. In this advertisement marketed by Bose,  the creators employed extreme exaggeration. After all, in a world with such loud noises, a person practically needs Niagara Falls-strength noise cancellation, right? Clearly, the purpose of this advertisement is to convince the viewer to buy a pair of noise-reducing headphones from Bose. The audience includes almost anyone, particularly people who are frequently in noisy areas. To convince viewers to buy from Bose, the creators had to make sure they sent a strong, bold message to the advertisement's viewers, which they accomplished through their use of symbolism, the threatening color scheme, and their appeal to the average buyer.
       The main use of symbolism lies clearly with the Niagara Falls, arguably one of the loudest places in America. Anyone as close to the Falls as the man in the advertisement would be overwhelmed with how loud the Falls were. However, he is not. He's rowing along happily, not hearing the rumble of the Niagara Falls just feet away, all thanks to his Bose "noise-reducing" headphones. In this way, the creators use the viewer's previous knowledge of Niagara Falls to their advantage. Any headphones with enough strength to block out the roar of Niagara Falls should be good enough to cancel just about any sound. This creates the sense that these Bose headphones are well worth whatever cost, helping the viewer to justify his or her potential purchase.
     Additionally, the advertisement's color scheme effectively adds to the overall mood of the advertisement. The dark greens, blues, and white of the image suggest that something is lurking, that something is dangerous. The man in the advertisement, however, does not notice any of this because of his headphones and sunglasses. Only very powerful headphones could convince this rower that his surroundings are not threatening.
     The creators also attempted to appeal to the average buyer by using someone who the buyer might be able to relate to. Since the man in the advertisement is wearing khaki shorts and is paddling, barefoot, a little row boat, along with his very own Bose noise-reducing headphones, potential buyers will not believe that these headphones are over their budget. As a result, the buyer will not feel isolated from Bose; thus, the average viewer is more likely to become a Bose-buyer. The creators of this advertisement effectively presented the viewer with several feasible reasons to buy their product, so I would consider this advertisement successful.

TOW #24: "What Makes an Alien Intelligent?"

If there are aliens out in space, why would we think they would be comparable to us?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/what-makes-an-alien-intelligent.html

What if in our great search for other intelligent life, were being a bit... narrow-minded? In an article titled "What Maes an Alien Intelligent?", the author, David Berreby explores that question. He begins by referencing a new discovery of a possible "twin" of Earth only to question how NASA began that search, by which he introduces the idea of a different type of intelligence, maybe one different from the human view of intelligence. Then, Berreby brings in Acta Astronautica by Denise Herzing, a dolphin-behaviorist researcher. Herzing says that what NASA really needs to find new intelligence is not new technology or more advanced spacecrafts, but rather a different way of defining and measuring intelligence. Herzing has five ways of measuring intelligence: size of the organism's brain relative to the size of the rest of its body; how well it sends and receives information; how different each organism is from the other; "the complexity of the being's social life"; amount of interaction, particularly with members of other species. Herzing's list makes one wonder how intelligence was classified beforehand. Also, what if the last point, about amount interaction with other species, was zero for all other forms of life? Berreby points out that a lack of interspecific communication would make contact with other forms of life nearly impossible. Whether the search for new life will be successful or not is unknown, but Berreby's purpose is to convince the reader that it is "better to wrestle at the edges of comprehension" than to naïvley accept that all other species are like ours and that we should rethink how we search for other intelligent life. To accomplish his purpose, Berreby uses examples from experts, inclusive language, and rhetorical questioning. As previously mentioned, Berreby cites information from behaviorist researcher Denise Herzing, who is more credible on the subject of intelligence than Berreby himself. Additionally, the author uses "we" to unite readers against foreign intelligence so to speak. This creates a sense of us-versus-them, further emphasizes Berreby's idea that human intelligence (us) and alien intelligence (them) are to be measured differently. Lastly, Berreby uses a rhetorical question to lead into a quote from an Wallace Stevens, a poet. Overall, I believe Berreby showed why we need to change how we approach alien intelligence differently. 

IRB Intro: "Antifragile"

The book I chose as my fourth marking period is called Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I chose this book because it was recommended to me by several people as well as on Freakonomics Radio. Antifragile explores the world of things that benefit from shock, such as "volatility, randomness, disorders, risk, and uncertainty," or the opposite of fragility. Nassim Nicolas Taleb is a Lebanese American scholar, essayist, and author who focuses on the cause of fragility or antifragility: uncertainty and randomness. He also wrote the The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbably, another book I would like to read, which was praised as one of the twelve most influential books published since World War II by the Sunday Times.

TOW #23: "Obama's Call To End Tragedies Angers Pro-Tragedy Wing In Congress"

Have politics become too convoluted? Does it ever seem that some politicians aren't entirely "for" the United States? Andy Borowitz believes so. Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and comedian who has been very highly praised for his satirical column in The New Yorker. In this article of The Borowitz Report from January 29th of this year, the author, Andy Borowitz, seizes the opportunity to make a point about politics today through humor. Borowitz describes how "pro-tragedy" politicians were angered by President Obama's vow to try to stop tragedies. The article, though short, is extremely effective. The purpose of this article is to expose the ridiculousness that has developed in American politics. Ideally, all American politicians, particularly congressmen and congresswomen, should be trying to improve America. However, Borowitz exposes the fact that many congresspeople might not be as ideal as one might hope. The audience of Borowitz's article includes any and all American citizens and politicians who care about the future of America and how America is governed. To achieve his purpose, Borowitz employs several rhetorical devices such as fabricated quotes, and primarily, satire. The quotes Borowitz intersperses, such as one from "Senator David Vitter" accuses President Obama of using "divisive and inflammatory anti-tragedy rhetoric." The brilliance of this quote is how politically realistic it sounds. Though the article clearly uses satire, the language of the fake quotes he uses sounds so similar to typical political jabber: foggy, accusatory, and mildly convoluted. This reinforces the satire Borowitz uses. This satire, for which Borowitz is so highly acclaimed, is what really helps him to achieve his purpose. Why would anyone be "pro-tragedy"? The entire article is ridiculous and brilliant. Of course, no politician is ever "pro-tragedy," but this leads the reader to conclude that perhaps some views held by politicians are "un-American" and downright absurd. Overall, the author effectively conveyed his message about politics. 

TOW #22: "How will life extension transform punishment?"

What is worse– death, or an eternity in jail? Ross Anderson says the latter.

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/should-biotech-make-life-hellish-for-criminals/?src=longreads

For quite a while now, capital punishment has been controversial. But what about a new type of punishment that might exist sometime in the future involving living in prison for quite a while, even more than a lifetime? Philosopher and editor Ross Anderson sets out to investigate this very question. Anderson interviews philosopher Rebecca Roache about the ethics of never-ending punishment for "super-criminals" such as Adolf Hitler. The purpose of this article is to make the reader consider the ethics of punishment in the future. The audience includes anyone who knows anyone who might be facing federal punishment any time in the future or anyone who is interested in justice and morality. To achieve his purpose, Anderson uses historical examples, employs a chronological format, and writes in first-person. Anderson poses a hypothetical situation that fits perfectly with his topic: If Adolf Hitler hadn't committed suicide, how would he have been punished? This allows Anderson to transition into the idea of an "endless" prison experience. Perhaps Hitler would receive a life sentence for every one of the millions of people he killed, meaning he would serve as long as possible. Anderson argues that given the lifespan-extending techniques that wait sometime in the future, a Hitler-level punishment might be possible. By posing this hypothetical historical example, Anderson is able to transition into his interview with Roache. He uses a question-answer format to understand Roache's perspective on the endless sentence that Anderson has proposed might exist in the future. This format allows Anderson to maintain a clear, straight-forward approach to answering such a broad, difficult-to-approach topic. Also, Anderson chose to move through his essay chronologically. First, he talks about Hitler, then current punishment standards, and finally the potential future of punishment. The last device Anderson uses has more to do with how he presents his essay. He uses a first-person perspective to make the essay flow more easily. This format makes the essay feel a little more casual, which is very important considering how "out-there" this topic is. Overall, Anderson effectively presented the idea of extended punishments.

TOW #21: IRB Post

The financial crisis of 2008 left many people distraught and even more confused, which is why Michael Lewis wrote The Big Short.

http://politic365.com/2011/04/20/why-so-quiet-on-threat-to-our-national-credit-rating/

When I began reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis, I was a bit uncertain what exactly I was getting into. I thought I would be reading a book purely about finances and economics. That isn't exactly the case. The Big Short is laid out in chapters, but it's sectioned off by different people. Every 15 or so pages, a new character is explained and introduced. This layout creates a very "layered" form of reading; first, I learned about Steven Eisman in detail, particularly about his involvement in subprime mortgage and later the "defaulting" of loans and the scam of a company called Household Finance Corporation. In the next section, not necessarily chapter, however, Lewis discusses Michael Burry, a highly-driven medical student who successfully drove his way into Wall Street. So far, both Eisman and Burry have something enormous in common: both men began in another career and found themselves dealing and trading on Wall Street. Eisman was a lawyer while Burry was a neurologist. Both abandoned their respectable careers to pursue their interest in the stock market. The appeal is obvious, and well-put by Burry himself: "[A stock] could only fall to zero, but it could rise to infinity." The purpose of The Big Short is to explain the financial crisis of 2008. So far, Lewis has used several rhetorical devices and strategies to achieve his purpose, including analogies and anecdotes. When trying to explain the tranches or a mortgage loan and repayment, Lewis compares each tranche to a new floor of a building. The lowest floor will be "flooded" first (meaning the person with this tranche will be the first to have to pay back their debt, then the second lowest, and so on. This analogy, along with the many others Lewis uses, serve to explain difficult-to-understand economic terms to the average reader. Without this explanation, readers would be lost and unable to follow Lewis's logic. By including specific, entertaining anecdotes, the author makes The Big Short feel less like an informational book but rather like an entertaining novel. This gives The Big Short added drama and sparks the readers interest. As of this point in The Big Short, Michael Lewis has effectively prepared himself to accomplish his purpose. 

TOW #20: "Save water. Save life."

Reading goal: Since this is a visual text, I want to carefully analyze all factors.
Writing goal: I want to write clearly and concisely without leaving out important details and explanations.

Maybe next time you're about to make a water-wasting decision, you'll really consider the consequences.
http://kozar.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/best_ads.jpg

     Would we still waste water if we knew we were killing an animal? Is our comfort worth the suffering or even death of an innocent animal? This advertisement, sponsored by Percept, was published and distributed in India. Percept is an entertainment, media, and communications conglomerate. It was published under a project called "Venfield" along with several other environmental advertisements. The purpose of this advertisement is to convince its viewers not to waste water, and the audience, although intended to be the people of India, is actually everyone. To have its desired impact, the creator of this advertisement employed several strategies and devices.
     This advertisement depicts a goldfish in a fish bowl with a tap that is dripping water and the words "Save water. Save life." written to the right of the fish bowl.
     One of the devices used is shading. The right side of the image is dark gray and the left side of the image is clear, peaceful white. This shading is crucial. The goldfish is highlighted in clean, pure, innocent white, whereas the person loosening the tap, most likely coming from the right side of the advertisement, is dark and convoluted. The goldfish represents the animals that we hurt by wasting water and everyone, including the viewer, is the dark, unshown figure that keeps loosening the tap. This creates the feeling that us, the people of the world who use too much water, are wrong and dark, killing innocent animals.
     A small but important detail to point out is that the goldfish is watching the water it needs to survive drip uselessly from the tap. The fact that it is watching is enough to create a sense of guilt within the viewer. The goldfish, arguably the least intelligent animal, acknowledges that its environment is being taken.
     There are several details about the water in this advertisement that help to convey its message. Water drips into a puddle for no apparent reason. This represents waste. The fact that the goldfish's bowl is already more than halfway drained represents the amount of water the audience has already wasted. This setup elicits a feeling of desperation within the viewer. So much water has already been wasted, and soon there won't be much left for the goldfish (representing all innocence in the world).
     Overall, I believe this advertisement effectively convinces the viewer to, at the very least, consider his or her water usage, therefore achieving its purpose.

TOW #19: "The Six Things That Make Stories Go Viral"

Could Aristotle have been the key to finding the next trends on twitter?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/01/the-six-things-that-make-stories-go-viral-will-amaze-and-maybe-infuriate-you.html

     Undeniably, the internet is one of the most significant ways to share information. That said, certain content is shared more than other content. What exactly distinguishes how much content will be shared? According to Maria Konnikova, there are several specific ways to achieve "shareability". Maria Konnikova is a writer and journalist who focuses primarily on psychology and literature. She is currently writing her first book. She graduated from Harvard University and studied the science of self-control at Columbia University in 2013.
     As a consumer and a daily user of the internet and its contents, it is important to understand what becomes popular and why, so as to avoid being an uneducated consumer. Konnikova wrote "The Six Things That Make Stories Go Viral Will Amaze, And Maybe Infuriate, You" is both to educate internet users and explain the science behind how content becomes popular. This article is applicable to all internet users.
     By appealing to ethos early in her essay, Konnikova follows the classical oration model, effectively establishing the credentials of the various sources she uses (which she later uses extensively). She writes, "When Jonah Berger was a graduate student at Stanford," then describes his interest in the five most-shared articles of each day from the Wall Street Journal. In providing this credible account, Konnikova gives readers a reason to care about her topic. If a Stanford graduate is interested in her topic, why shouldn't the average reader be interested as well?
     Konnikova uses rhetorical questions to transition from her introduction to the narration, once again following the classical oration model. She asks the reader, "What is it about a piece of content– an article, a picture, a video– that took it from simply interesting to interesting and shareable?" If the reader was not enticed by her appeal to ethos in her introduction, surely their drive for curiosity provoked by her use of rhetorical questions would entice he or she.
     Her second paragraph, which serves as the narration, provides the reader with an analogy relating Aristotle's philosophies to twitter. Such starkly contrasted ideas proves the relevance of shareability. She compares Aristotle's beliefs about rhetoric to the shareability of, say, a tweet or a Facebook post. This strategy adds another appeal to ethos to reestablish the universal presence and relevance of "shareability". Several times in her essay, Konnikova references several of Aristotle's beliefs previously described to strengthen her argument. Since she isn't an expert on the topic she writes about, this strategy is very effective.
     To end her essay, Konnikova addresses a possible counterargument. "We may be changing what will become popular even as we're studying it." With this point, Konnikova brings her topic into the real, dynamic world. Although she essentially undermines most of her essay by including this point, she understands that to not write it would prove her lack of understanding of the study as a whole. Had she ended her essay on this point, it would have been considerably weaker. However, she instead ends with a trending title to disprove the counterargument presented and regain her idea's strength. She writes that at the time she was writing the article, the top trending story on a popular website is titled, "Her Little Boy Has No Idea His Mother Is About To Die. What She's Doing About That Is Amazing." This example hits almost all of the points she mentions that make for a trending title: it appeals to pathos, it is positive, it is inspirational, and it is sensational. The fact that it is current at the time she wrote this article makes the reader realize although her ideas may be irrelevant in the future, they are certainly relevant as of now.

TOW #18: "The Death of the Moth" by Virginia Woolf

The cover alone depicts Virginia Woolf's struggle with mental illness in The Death of the Moth.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91d/chapter1.html

In her post-mortem publication The Death of the Moth and other essays, Virginia Woolf begins by talking about a seemingly benign subject. Woolf’s book was written in 1941, the same year she committed suicide. The collection of essays was then published by Leonard Woolf, her husband, in 1942. In her first essay of her book, “The Death of the Moth,” Woolf describes an insignificant moth’s slow, hopeless death. Although only implied, the true purpose of “The Death of the Moth” is to describe her own struggle with mental illness, as shown by her suicide not even a year later. Virginia Woolf was an British essayist, novelist, and critic who was educated by her parents. Her childhood was fraught with illness and death, starting with her mother’s death when Woolf was only 13. As shown in her writing, the hardships and instability she dealt with have heavily influenced her thinking. The audience of Woolf’s work included those who were interested in the effects of mental illness and appreciated the same style of writing as her father, Leslie Stephen, who was a notable author and critic as well. In “The Death of the Moth,” Woolf employs various rhetorical devices and strategies to compare her own struggle with death to the physical struggle of the dying moth. She personifies death, saying “the insignificant little creature know knew death”. This tones down the intensity of death. Rather than saying “he died,” which sounds much more brutal, she eases into the idea by suggesting that death was just another person to be met. By downplaying death, she is possibly rationalizing to herself how suicide was insignificant – just another idea. Additionally, Woolf describes the moth’s death in excruciating detail to emphasize the struggle of living with a mental illness. She is drawing a connection between the slow and sure death by mental instability to the drawn-out death of the moth. Overall, Woolf provides interesting insight into the mind of a person with mental illness at a time when mental illnesses weren’t as widely recognized through her use of personification and excessive detail. 

IRB Introduction: The Big Short

The Big Short, by Michael Lewis, discusses the banking crisis of 2008 from his view with a focus on the different people involved. I chose this book because it has been recommended to me several times by various people as a crucial read for my generation and because, at this point, I am interested in economics and finances. From what I've read at this point, I have come to understand that The Big Short is not so packed with financial jargon that I couldn't read it, given my limited experience in the field. Just having read so far, I notice several fresh metaphors which gives me reason to believe that Lewis's writing style will be interesting in addition to the book's interesting topic.

TOW #17: "Loving and hating the superbowl"

"Loving and hating the superbowl"

What better time to bring up the morals surrounding football than the morning of Superbowl Sunday?

Source: http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/01/31/super-bowl-xlvii.jpg

Right after the Superbowl every year, everyone is eager to talk about the winner, the loser, the bets, and the advertisements, and this year was no exception. But who is going to talk about the mental, emotional, and physical toll the game takes on the players? That would be concerned spectators like the author of "Loving and Hating the Superbowl" Gene Seymour, a film critic who has written for publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Newsday about media and culture. By writing this opinion-based editorial just hours before the giant event, Seymour's purpose is to present the reader, presumably a football fan, with the more negative side of football and ultimately lead him or her to consider their own stance his ideas. To achieve his purpose, Seymour uses allusions, rhetorical questions, and comparisons. To begin his somewhat controversial article, the author makes an allusion to John Matuszak from "North Dallas Forty." This serves to softly introduce his idea in a non-offensive way. To transition into his main point, Seymour pulls from the movie, quoting,  "Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. Every time I call it a business, you call it a game." Seymour shows that just as there is blurring contrast between business and football, the line between cruelty and entertainment is blurred in the NFL. After Seymour delves into his main point regarding immoral excitement, he poses a question for his audience, asking, "How does one stay passionate about football in the face of the grim, steadily mounting number of cases involving ex-players undergoing physical and mental injury and anguish over the sport's long-term effects?" Seymour sympathizes with fellow fans by expressing his desire to be able to enjoy football while still conveying his message. Also, the question itself invites the reader to think about how they're participating in this potentially wrongful form of entertainment. Lastly, the author wraps his article up by tying back to his original allusion by comparing football to business. He says that business has a powerful edge over the game (implying further confusion between football-watching morals) and that soon, the game might loose (implying that the allure of immoral entertainment will win over the crowd). 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/seymour-super-bowl/index.html?hpt=op_t1

TOW #16: René Magritte's "Clairvoyance"

 "Clairvoyance" by Rene Magritte

"Clairvoyance" was painted by Magritte in 1936 in Brussels, Belgium.

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/rene-magritte/clairvoyance-self-portrait-1936#supersized-artistPaintings-211326

Any artist during the surrealism period had to deal with the inevitable "I don't get it" response from many critics who still preferred less abstract art. Although René Magritte's work is not as abstract as that of many other surrealist artists, it was somewhat more controversial since it was so nearly non-surrealist. All of his work contains discernable parts that, if rearranged, would render his work to be non-surrealist. René Magritte is a Belgian surrealist artist who lived from 1898 to 1967. His work focuses on the idea of how people perceive reality. He is most well-known for his painting "The Treachery of Images" featuring the words "this is not a pipe" (in French) below what is clearly a pipe. Magritte studied art at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Brussels. As of 2009, he has his own museum in Brussel. "Clairvoyance" is a painting featuring a painter who sees an egg but paints a bird. This painting has multiple purposes, all of which are intertwined. Explicitly, he wanted to convey the idea that artists do not always paint what they see, but rather what they can expect; perhaps, although the egg has not yet hatched, an artist can predict with (almost) absolute certainty what will be in the egg with only a bit of guesswork regarding the details of the bird, such as color, shape, and so on. After all, "clairvoyant" comes from clair voir, literally meaning "to see clearly," particularly involving the future. Implicitly, Magritte wanted to show the reader that the artist and the viewer can perceive reality differently, either as what is inevitable or as what is present. This piece was not composed for an audience who appreciates fine art, but rather an audience who appreciates thought-provoking work. Magritte is not applauded for his talent as much as his ingenuity through simplicity.  To achieve his purpose, Magritte uses techniques such as juxtaposition and realistic qualities. He juxtaposes the simple egg against a red background with a majestic, complex bird against a white background. This creates a feeling of admiration for the artist in the painting for his ability to see complexity in simplicity. His use of realistic qualities to offset the somewhat unrealistic factor to "Clairvoyance". Whereas the bird looks very realistic and detailed, it was drawn from an egg. I believe Magritte achieved his purpose because it was so simple that it allowed me to draw meaning from it without any confusion. He effectively conveyed a complex idea through a simple image. The primary reason I believe he achieved his purpose was due to his spectacular juxtaposition of the egg and the bird. 

TOW #15: Reverse-Engineering a Genius

Reverse-Engeneering a Genius

This is the painting by Johannes Vermeer that Tim Jenison recreated. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/11/vermeer-secret-tool-mirrors-lenses_slideshow_item4_5

Throughout history, artists have always belonged to a misunderstood culture. Very few find themselves in the spotlight, but when they do, the light surest is blinding. But what if "art" as we know it – the traditional form, with paints and a canvas – wasn't actually what we think it was? For artists like Renoir, Manet, Monet, da Vinci, and Michaelanglo, there has always been the assumption that their work was genuine and self-created. What if... it wasn't? Particularly in the peculiar case of Johannes Vermeer, who suddenly took to art at the age of 21 without any actual instruction. Did Vermeer even take to art in the first place? According to the latest information in art – rather, replication – he may have used a camera obscura to create a photo-like copy of a real scene. Upon visiting the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Tim Jenison, a man who had worked with design theory nearly his entire life, remarked, "It looked to me like Vermeer was painting in a way that was impossible." In a breakthrough following months of speculation, Jenison figured out that he could use a small mirror, angled precisely, to recreate just about any image, despite his complete lack of artistic ability. To try to recreate one of Vermeer's "paintings," Jenison used his wealth to recreate the room shown in his painting to try his new technique. He even recreated 17th century mirrors and paints for the experiment. In the end, he was successful. He says he is now 95 percent sure. What does this mean for the world of art? In this essay, the author, Kurt Andersen, uses ancedotes and dramatic diction to make the reader, any art enthusiast, consider art theory as a whole. These two devices are used to create an intriguing, convincing essay by playing off the reader's natural desire for drama and controversy. Andersen is an American novelist, educated at Harvard University, who is primarily famous for his Peabody-winning radio show, Studio 360. I think Andersen's most effective device was his striking syntax. He bounced back and forth between sentence formats, playing particularly with sentence length for effect. Overall, a very interesting essay with much to consider.

TOW #14: 'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

Russia Times reporting on the controversial case of Ethan Couch.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16153654/image/102276016-ethan-couch-avoids-jail-time-thanks-to-affluenza-defense

"Affluenza" is a term coined in the 1970s to encapsulate an odd, "affluent-influenza" that supposedly affects young, wealthy kids and their lack of motivation due to a poor upbringing. A benign idea, until some desperate attorney pulls it out of nowhere to defend a minor accused of four counts of intoxicated manslaughter. In his article, Danny Cevallos attempts to explain the court system and why a bout of affluenza might actually be a legitimate mitigation of punishment. Danny Cevallos is a legal analyst that currently works for CNN. He is a criminal defense attorney, which qualifies him to talk about a recent court case involving 16-year-old Ethan Couch, charged with hitting and killing four innocent people while driving under the influence of alcohol. Couch walked away with 10 years of probation rather than 20 years of prison, primarily because of his claim of affluenza. Cevallos uses this incident to comment on several broader ideas regarding both affluent children and juvenile courts. His purpose is to explain the reasoning behind affluenza and – more importantly – to comment on the current state of the juvenile court system. Cevallos wrote his opinion editorial for a broad audience: anyone who is or knows a child, wealthy or not; anyone in the legal system as a whole; even anyone who has heard about the controversial case of Ethan Couch. To portray his view on the juvenile court system, Cevallos uses anecdote-like medical studies and his own personal knowledge on the defensive side on court cases with a focus on juvenile cases. Although Cevallos's article kept me interested, that wasn't his purpose. Considering the fact that Cevallos has experience in law and writing, this article should have been spot-on. However, I feel as though Cevallos set out with one purpose (to explain his view on affluenza) and ended up somewhat off topic (describing and revamping the entire juvenile court system). Regardless, I do think his use of medical studies as factual anecdotes was very effective at forwarding his purpose. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/opinion/cevallos-case-for-affluenza/index.html?hpt=op_bn5