A hysterical story conveys Bill Bryson's strong opinions on American wilderness preservation.
In the early 1980s, Bill Bryson, a passionate, comedic, and best-selling author, decided to hike the 2,100 mile Appalachian Trail with minimal previous experience. He had felt the desire to be a true outdoorsman, and decided that the rumored "AT" would provide a true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Departing with an old friend, Katz, Bryson traversed the eastern U.S. on foot, and then wrote A Walk in the Woods to describe his experiences. He writes for a broad audience, but he does seem to directly appeal to environmentally conscious readers. Because his book is not simply an entertaining story about his travels, Bryson's purpose is to educate his readers on the dire state of conservation in America. He does this primarily with statistics, establishing his credibility. When talking about the U.S. Forest Service's logging ventures, he states "Of the Forest Service's 150 million acres of loggable land, about two-thirds is held in store for the future. The remaining one-third – 49 million acres, roughly the size of Ohio – is available for logging" (47). This statement uses facts provided by the Forest Service themselves, and are irrefutable. He then goes on to make the logical argument that logging "brings out huge, reckless washoffs that gully the soil," (47) and ends with an appeal to pathos using words with strong connotations: "This isn't science. It's rape" (47). Bryson filters through a large amount of information in these sections of his book, which are placed periodically throughout his narrative. They typically relate to what he is experiencing, displaying logical organization and allowing him to use anecdotes. As part of his description of the U.S. Forest Service's weak service, he describes their pitiful maps of the Appalachian Trail. Just after this, he finds himself in a blizzard, consulting his map to no avail. I think that Bryson's use of rhetoric is very successful. His narrative conveys the beauty of his experience, and his logical arguments regarding conservation concisely convey that there is much work to be done to preserve the Appalachian Trail.
I have a sneaking suspicion he will find one of these, and I can't wait.
Superbowl XLVI took place on February 5th, 2012 during which a Chevy commercial debuted depicting the rumored apocalypse of December 21st, 2012. In the advertisement, the only survivors are revealed to be those who drive Chevy trucks. It is intended to be humorous, referencing several popular descriptions of the end of the world. The commercial is intended to entertain the Superbowl's 111.3 million viewers (The Guardian), while simultaneously promoting Chevy-made automobiles as reliable and long lasting. This is in an effort to continue the "Chevy Runs Deep" campaign, to show the long-lasting positive effects of owning a vehicle made by one of the most successful car manufacturers in the world. The commercial begins with views of a destroyed city, as well as a close-up on a newspaper describing the Mayan Apocalypse. These two shots quickly establish the context of the advertisement. The music that plays in the background sounds sad, but is not frightening or tense, so does not cause the viewer alarm. The subject of the commercial is made evident when a Chevy truck pulls out of a pile of rocks, which logically leads viewers to the conclusion that Chevy trucks can withstand disaster. The music then shifts to lyrics of "Looks like we made it!" and the camera shows the live driver and dog (a common duo in disaster films). The commercial appeals to humor as the car drives through areas of total chaos, depicting many different predictions of the apocalypse, ranging from giant robots to volcanoes to alien spacecraft. By using such imagery, the commercial establishes how tough a Chevy vehicle is designed to be. The protagonist then drives into a circle of survivors, all standing in front of their parked Chevy trucks, each of which represented a different generation or model. The viewer quickly makes the assumption that in order to survive the depicted apocalypse, one has to be driving a truck. The men all wear flannel or denim, some have beards, and all are cloaked in dirt. This makes another association for the audience, making the desirable stereotype that men who drive trucks are rugged and manly. The best use of rhetoric comes when the protagonist asks where his friend Dave is. It is explained that Dave did not survive, because he did not drive the "longest lasting, most dependable truck on the road," which is assumed to be a Chevy. This is confirmed when it is revealed that he drove a Ford. This acknowledges the competition between Chevy and Ford, but then makes it clear, at least in the context of the commercial, that owning a Chevy is the better option. I think the commercial does fulfill its purpose. It is very humorous, and brings the reader to several conclusions (all relating to how dependable a Chevrolet tuck is), whether they are aware of it or not.
On September 10th, President Barack Obama delivered a speech concerning the impending crisis in Syria, during which he explained the current situation, his personal stance on the issue, and how the United States may respond. Obama is the current president of the United States, and therefore acts as the Commander-in-Chief for all military affairs. He was moved to address the American public after the authoritarian Syrian government released sarin gas (a lethal chemical) in several villages containing alleged government resistance. The attack killed over 100,000 individuals, and, according to Obama, requires immediate global attention. Therefore, his purpose is to justify his initial intent of military action, planned to prevent future chemical warfare with the United States, for the American public. In order to do so, Barack Obama delivered the entire speech in his typical calm, slow style. The speech was easily understood and well-divided for audience reflection. He made use of an appalled, but authoritative tone when describing the Syrian massacre. This utilization of pathos was evident throughout the speech, as he consistently emphasized that the victims included children. There will be far more victims if the US does not intervene, according to Obama, because other dictators and tyrants "will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them." His proposed thought experiment effectively calls upon the fear of foreign terrorism, helping to justify American reaction. Obama does address his opposition, citing letters written to him that questions his intentions in involvement in Syria. His speech was then organized as a series of questions and his responses, an effective technique to give the impression that he is speaking directly to each member of his audience. However, there are serious flaws with Obama's approach. The first is that he often contradicts himself. He states that an American strike is "in the national security interests of the United States", but then later says he made his decision "in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security." Also, Obama consistently referred to the American assault as a "targeted military strike," and never outline what it this entailed (which is understandable, because of its confidentiality) or how much of an impact it would have on American citizens or the military budget. Because of this vague nature and Obama's uncertainty, I do not think he effectively justified American military action in Syria.
For the next four weeks, I will be reading A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson. It was recommended to me as by Mr. Yost and my parents. This apparently hysterical travel memoir describes Bryson's trek along the Appalachian Trail. He explains the bountiful natural setting as well as his own silly adventures. Having little to no experience hiking, with a lacking physique to boot, Bryson and his old friend Stephen Katz attempt to travel from Georgia to Maine in one season. They encounter many eccentric characters along the way, as well as beautiful vistas. Bryson reportedly aims to entertain his reader, but also tries to justify and promote conservation efforts for one of Americas natural wonders. I an enthusiast regarding the natural world, though my nonfiction approach is typically in the form of encyclopedias. I rarely read travel reports, but this book is apparently a phenomenal place to begin. A Walk in the Woods is a narrative, so I hope to explore the use of rhetoric in that form of writing. It will be interesting to see how Bryson incorporates opinions on conservation and travel logistics with imagery and humor.
Who Are You And What Are Your Doing Here? is written by Dr. Mark Edmundson, a professor in the University of Virginia's Department of English. This is one of Edmundson's many essays on education, and was published in Oxford American, a Southern literary journal. As a university professor, Edmundson directs this essay to incoming college freshmen, teaching them that society pushes students to use higher education as merely a conduit for a high-paying first job. He explores the pitfalls of higher education and the requirements of of receiving a meaningful education that will lead to a spiritually fulfilling career. He maintains that this fulfilling lifestyle, one in which we "expend our energies in rightful ways" (101) that can "restore you as you go" (100), can be achieved only through finding and pursuing one's particular passion, even though this requires more effort. Edmundson begins the essay in the second person, establishing a familiar tone with the reader, as if he is talking directly to them. This feeling continues throughout the piece, as he uses some informal writing, for example an issue in his teaching career was "small potatoes" (89). Despite this, Edmundson quickly reveals himself to be knowledgable, recounting his time before college when he had to decide what he wanted to study. Later, he makes it known that he is a professor at a university, establishing his credibility. In terms of organization, Edmundson begins with a detailed survey of a typical college life, logically progressing to the positive product of higher education: "You'll get a good job, you'll have plenty of friends, you'll have a driveway all your own" (95). Here he dramatically changes focus, saying that, in fact, a student who does "what society needs done" (100) will not be happy. Edmundson follows with a description of Emerson and Freud, two prominent writers that add to his credibility and provide a historical perspective on modern events. He utilizes an anecdote about his father's unfulfilling career and concludes with a thought experiment about the benefits of following one's passion. I think the essay is extremely well crafted and written with an authoritative tone that convinced me that Edmundson is very knowledgeable. He established an opposing argument and proceeded to refute it, using a barrage of insight, stories, and prominent figures in literature.
Gateway
Decisions in college determine how fulfilling one's life can be.
Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/87434398@N00/173504141/
Malcolm Gladwell is a popular staff writer for The New Yorker who has written four bestselling books. In Creation Myth, he delves into the innovative successes originating from Xerox PARC, a research center in Palo Alto, California, credited with some of the greatest technological innovations of the 1900s. He specifically describes two instances, the personal computer that inspired Steve Jobs's Macintosh and Gary Starkweather's laser printer. In this essay Gladwell shows how Xerox PARC's approach to innovation allowed for revolutionary thinkers to develop the technology industry. In addition to proving the potential of Xerox PARC, Gladwell also explores the difference between a novel invention and a product developed for the consumer market. He does this for the general public, assuming they have a basic knowledge of the technology industry, including the companies Xerox and Apple. To describe the processes involved with innovation, Gladwell utilizes multiple stories of creativity, focusing on how Steve Jobs developing Xerox's personal computer into a successful consumer item, and Gary Starkweather's struggle to develop a laser printer without Xerox's backing. Gladwell selects these stories because the innovations are profound enough to already be known to the reader, and in both stories Xerox's management seems to fail the company. After the two stories, Gladwell transitions into a separate anecdote regarding Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. This change of setting not only shows the universality of creativity, but this selected example allows Gladwell to make the logical argument that to produce a product creativity must be controlled and directed Gladwell then returns to the story of Gary Starkweather's fight with Xerox management. Gladwell uses deductive reasoning to show that creativity must be controlled to be successful. Starkweather is creative, and ultimately uses the narrative to reveal that Xerox management made the printer a success. Gladwell ends by quoting Starkweather describing Starkweather when he left to go to Apple, which, ultimately, became as stifling as Xerox. This is a full circle ending, but is also abductive reasoning. Starkweather and the Rolling Stones are the major and minor premise, respectively, leading to the final conclusion about Apple imitating Xerox. I think this piece is effective because it engages the reader with interesting stories and commentary. The transitions and organization chronologically bring the reader to a natural epiphany about innovation, effectively accomplishing Gladwell's purpose.
Success
Apple's personal computer is the result of a long innovative process.
Image Source: monografias.com
In this essay Miah Arnold describes her feelings of loss concerning her job as an English teacher (she earned her doctorate in the subject) at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. She works primarily with terminal patients, and throughout the essay tells stories of her time there, describes what it is like to lose those she loves. One of her favorite students, Khalil, has recently died, and it is perhaps that tragedy that inspired her to write this essay. Arnold has worked at the Cancer Center described in the essay for over a decade, encouraging children to write poems and prose. Because her career appears to be so depressing for some, Miah Arnold explores why it is she consistently returns to her job, despite repeatedly bargaining that if another child dies, she will quit. Arnold wrote this essay to be understood by the general public, as indicated by her explanation of a hospital environment and cancer treatment. However, the essay may also be directed at parents with sick children and other hospice caretakers, that they may find comfort in her reflections on tragedy. Arnold relies heavily on anecdotes throughout the essay; it is written as a narrative with sections of omniscient reflection. Each story is selected to get a particular emotional response from the reader, as well as moving the essay forward to her next reflection. For example, she describes her strong relationship with her student Khalil. This transitions to her interactions with her students and how she teaches them as the reflection and analysis. She then returns to a narrative style to describe Khalil's death and then her subsequent reaction and reflection on why she has not quit if students she loves die. This pattern continues throughout the essay, so it is structurally monotonous. However, her essays are so well chosen to induce emotions in the reader and to connect them to her job that it holds interest. Her reflections progress logically, first questioning why she would stay, confirming that she will stay, and then trying to determine what about her can allow her to work with dying children. Though there is no definitive conclusion or epiphany, the reader comes to understand that it is all of her stories and experiences that allow her to stay. Because her stories of death were unique and so well-selected to be moving, I think Arnold did accomplish her purpose. Her use of emotion was very impacting.
Angel on Earth
Miah Arnold treats her students like ordinary children, so they may laugh in the face of death.
Image Source: American Childhood Cancer Organization
