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.