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.
