TOW #3: SmartWater

Millions of people a day buy bottled water. Although most contain the same type of water, many people, including my good friend Leah, think that “SmartWater is just better”. I disagree;  I know it’s all in the packaging.  Due to the fact that there are countless types of water bottles to choose from, and usually they sit right next to each other in convenience stores, SmartWater has adjusted the rhetoric on the bottle so people choose their “superior” product.

In order to influence people to choose and keep choosing SmartWater, the scientists and advertising team, who should know what they are talking about, considering it is their product, utilize a friendly tone and advanced vocabulary to convince the reader of the superiority of their water. On the front of the bottle, SmartWater proudly proclaims that the water inside is, “vapor distilled water and electrolytes for taste” (SmartWater bottle). Although these words are not necessarily SAT words, the average reader is not usually confronted with words like “vapor distilled” and “electrolytes” when choosing water. Besides giving the reader information about the water, these words just make SmartWater sound, well, smart. Many readers may also be prompted to wonder, what is vapor distilled? Maybe this water really is better… And electrolytes, wow! Not only does the vivid vocab on the front achieve its purpose, to get people to buy SmartWater, but the blurb on the back with a casual tone helps as well.

When you turn the SmartWater bottle around to find out more about the water being “vapor distilled,” the blurb back is different than the usual. It boldly says how their water is “a difference you can taste...unless, of course, you prefer the taste of that stuff that comes from underground...like spring water (then you’re on your own)” (SmartWater bottle). This intentionally casual and playful language appeals to both pathos and ethos. Instead of the reader seeing the water company as some removed sources of information, the bottle talks directly to the reader, utilizing second person. Therefore, the author seems like a friend or someone that the reader trusts. Also, the challenge of “unless, of course, you prefer the taste of that stuff that comes from underground,” appeals to pathos because if the reader did like spring water, the light but slightly undermining tone this makes the reader think twice about spring water. Although the company may be making a jab at the customer’s tastes, the blurb does it in such a way that the reader could not possibly be offended, and it still makes SmartWater sound better. SmartWater uses advanced vocabulary and a casual tone to effectively prompt people to buy their water over countless others, and judging by my friend Leah, their tactics are working.

TOW #2: NSA Republican Political Cartoon by Mike Luckovitch

Mike Luckovitch, a Pulizter Prize editorial cartoonist, illustrates the relations between the Republican party and the NSA in this cartoon. In this cartoon, a representative from the NSA is sitting in front of a board of elephants, who represent the Republicans. He is seemingly reporting back the NSA’s findings to the Republicans by saying, “We intercepted the ‘chatter’ of a group plotting to cripple the U.S. government and harm the economy”. In reply to this, the Republicans say, “we don’t appreciate you listening in to our phone calls”.

For the intended audience, well-educated people who know a little about politics, the multiple messages are clear. The first message is that the NSA is using the protection from terrorism as an excuse for listening to people’s phone calls. The audience knows this because the three Republicans are the congressmen at a political hearing for the NSA to justify what they are doing. By saying “we intercepted” something, the NSA is justifying the fact that they are abridging American freedoms. The second message is that the party in power, now has the ability to spy on the opposing party. The NSA is controlled by the Democratic Party currently, and they have the ability to spy on the Republicans as exemplified here. This demonstrates the particular danger of using terrorism to justify domestic spying. The third and most prominent message, and also the punchline of this cartoon, is the fact that the Republicans are the sources of the terrorist ‘chatter’ that the NSA found. Luckovitch is commenting on the motives of the Republican party. The third message is that Republicans do?{'-"{ not have America’s best interest at heart. Instead of talking about how to improve America over the phone, they were “plotting to cripple the U.S. government and harm the economy”. This illustrates that the Republican party is really maliciously plotting for their own good.

Through the use of humor and multiple layers of meaning, Luckovitch achieves his purpose. He is able to get across his messages with multiple layers of underlying meaning as the reader chronologically reads the cartoon. The first message about the NSA can be deduced from just the fact that the NSA was at a political hearing. The second message comes through when the reader sees the Republicans as the ones being spied on. The punchline brings the cartoon home with humor. Luckovitch is able to use humor to illustrate deeper meanings and get his messages across in this cartoon.

(source: http://www.sodahead.com/fun/still-more-political-cartoons/question-3899085/)

TOW #1: A Bully Does His Research by Jesse Eisenberg

In the piece A Bully Does His Research, found in the New Yorker website, Jesse Eisenberg, an actor that surprisingly writes for the blog section, addresses the true underlying pain that a bully can inflict. The article is a satirical inner monologue from a bully who begins the day by taking another student’s lunch money, then gets scolded by his teacher, is suspended by the principal, and tears down his father on the way home from school.

The unique thing about this bully’s inner monologue is that the bully doesn’t think like an actual person would. Instead, Eisenberg incorporates the victims’ views within the thoughts of the bully. For example, when the bully is confronted by the teacher, he or she responds with: “Yeah, I know you wanted to go to RISD since you were my age, but you couldn’t get in and now you’re stuck teaching sixth-grade science. Well, boo-hoo-hoo!” (Eisenberg). The ambiguity of the bully’s words illustrates the meaning throughout the passage. A bully would not actually say any of these things, but when someone is being bullied, all of the suppressed pain in a victim’s life seems to be at the forefront of his or her mind.

In every confrontation, the bully seems to know the exact source of pain for the victim, and he or she exploits it. No real bully would be saying things like: “thanks for the ride home, Pops! Is it nice to pick me up in the middle of the day, or does it highlight the fact that Mom’s the one with the real job?” (Eisenberg). At the very end, the bully is staring at his own reflection while he is locked in his room. Eisenberg then writes the inner monologue of the bully attacking himself. He ends with, “if no one likes you, you could remain in that safe little bubble? Bite me!” (Eisenberg). 

Through this utilization of satire, and a full circle ending, Eisenhower proves his purpose that many bullies can exploit some of the most painful things in a person’s life; however, they probably ridicule themselves internally as well. This simple and tasteful blog post shows any reader the true thoughts of both the bullied and bully, and therefore, it can help just about any age, gender, or type of reader to overcome this daunting problem.

Article Link 

Picture Link

IRB Intro: Outliers

As my mom told me early this year, The Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell is a nationally ranked book. All throughout this spring, she would give me little bits and pieces of information from the book, such as the fact that the Raven's Progressive Matrices tests are the most advanced IQ tests in the world, and almost no one can get a good score on them. Obviously, this was intriguing. I began to ask my Mom more about the book, to which she replied: "you'll just have to read it." So, since The Outliers has been lying on my nightstand beside my bed for a few months now, I decided to give it a shot. 

I researched a bit more on what the book was about and I found out that it offers the formula to success! Well, not quite, but it does highlight many famous successful people (and success stories) and analyze what made them so successful. Gladwell's radically different viewpoint on success states that success is not just who a person is, or how hard he or she works, but most of success can come from someone's culture, family, generation, and his or her upbringing. Although Mr. Yost did give us a fair warning on Gladwell's writing style, the topic of his book is just too attractive to resist. 

After reading this book, I expect to be equipped with the secret to life, and the formula for success. So I may be exaggerating, but in all seriousness, I want to use the information in this book to make this year a successful year for me. My goal in this year is to learn to think on a higher level and to learn to work with the efficience and diligence of a college student. I have to adapt to my new workload and at the same time balance many different extracurricular activities. I'm hoping that some tips and advice from someone who has studied why certain people succeed might help me to do the same. I'm hoping to become an outlier!

A Personal Essay by a Personal Essay

The shortest, yet possibly most intriguing of the essays in The Best American Essays is A Personal Essay by a Personal Essay. Written by Christy Vannoy, this essay takes place during the duration of a clinic led by “the Article’s Director and Editor for a national women’s magazine,” but it never reveals where or for what magazine specifically.

The only real evidence that Vannoy is credible is that this essay is from McSweeney’s, a well-known American publishing house. However, credibility is not of much issue because this is a creative work with no information needed. In fact, it is all a narrative from the point of view of a personal essay. During the story, this essay is in this writer’s clinic in which personal essays are read and critiqued. Throughout the story, the personal essay is sizing up the other essays and contemplating what makes a good personal essay.

Vannoy’s purpose in writing this was to highlight the fact that struggle makes good writing. Vannoy targets the aspiring writer to get her point across that difficulty or rough times in one’s life can make great stories.

Vannoy is able to prove her point through humor. The internal monologue of the essay about other essays is both funny and relatable. The essay thinks: “Every essay who’s been through chemo or tried lesbianism ends up bald. Bald isn’t the story. Alopecia was heading in the right direction, loving herself, but she was getting there all wrong” (Vannoy 210). Although this humor may be cold and cutting, Vannoy is able to portray the faults in certain essays and how the essays could be better.

Besides using humor to prove that struggle trumps bland personal essays that lack hardship, Vannoy uses the point of view as a unique rhetorical device. Although this essay is short, the use of an inanimate object personified throughout the whole essay is intriguing. Without this device, this essay about essays would be exactly what it’s telling the reader not to be when writing: dull. Therefore, the point of view proves a point within a point: spice up your writing.

(source: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/PgoRc8Q_baC/Afrikaaner+Community+Suffers+Economic+Hardship)

Generation Why?

        Generation Why? by Zadie Smith is an analysis on the fundamental ideas behind Facebook and social networking as we see it today. The essay begins by informing the reader of the beginning of Facebook and of Mark Zuckerberg’s story. Then, the essay goes on to examine why people need Facebook, and it explains the website’s effect on social norms.
         Zadie Smith claims to be part of Zuckerberg’s generation, making her view credible because she is not just any third party critic. Smith also is a tenured professor of writing at New York University, and she has published many novels.

       This essay is clearly written by Smith shortly after the Facebook fad came to be to bring to attention the falsehood and faults in having a virtual identity through Facebook. Obviously targeting the “new generation,” this essay aims to expose that Facebook is a juvenile way for people to socialize. Smith makes this apparent when she points out Zuckerberg’s own inept social skills.

        Smith utilizes real facts and quotes as rhetorical devices to help prove her point. Real things written on Zuckerberg’s own profile, such as his interests in “minimalism, revolutions, and ‘eliminating desire’” are used in her writing to highlight his faults as a social person (Smith 191). Through these facts, Smith is able to prove that Facebook, and the idea of Facebook stemmed from a lack of social understanding in the first place. Also, Smith uses quotes from high esteemed programmers, like Zuckerberg, but who oppose Facebook. For example, Smith quotes Jaron Lanier, who says “…the belief that computers can presently represent human thought or human relationships. These are things computers cannot currently do” (Smith 193).

       The exploitation of Zuckerberg and Facebook’s intrinsic social loop holes does allow Smith to prove her point because it makes the reader realize that a site like Facebook does a horrible job of feigning real socialization. Through her use of facts about Zuckerberg, and her quoting of other high established people in the computer world bring into the light that Facebook is not all it’s cracked up to be.

(source: http://calibermag.org/articles/the-many-faces-of-facebook/facebook-mark-zuckerberg/)

Magical Dinners

Magical Dinners, by Chang-Rae Lee is a personal narrative about his family’s first Thanksgiving dinner. The narrative focuses mostly on the food that is eaten and cooked by Lee’s mother, especially when he was a young kid. Through highlighting his mother’s cooking, Lee flashes back from Thanksgiving dinner to multiple meals that his mother cooked, and to her gradual progression to making Americanized meals.

Lee’s purpose is to connect to other immigrants by showing how through these meals, his family clings to their culture. He uses his own childhood to illustrate how an immigrant family could feel when trying to adapt to life in America. The audience can be anyone; however, this essay was probably meant to strike a chord with immigrant people, who have had similar experiences with culture.

Lee’s most common rhetorical device that he uses in his writing is his imagery. He describes all aspect of the settings and food in his story with vivid adjectives and vocabulary. Lee also does an exceptional job with conveying the emotions of a character. When he describes his mother’s disappointment if someone does not like her food, Lee includes the fact that first, “you can watch her face ice over. Shatter… but soon enough she’s simply miserable, her pretty eyes gone lightless and faraway,” (Lee 133). Not only does Lee tell of her emotions in a descriptive way, but he includes the gradual progression of different emotion as well.

Essentially, Lee’s narrative achieves its purpose without even trying. Immigrants are likely to connect to any story of other immigrants’ hardship because that is what most of them have in common. Many families from other countries have probably clung to an aspect of culture like food, so through merely telling the story, Lee can connect to many people.

Lee is the most credible author for this topic because it is his personal narrative. It’s all from his point of view, so one would assume he would not lie about his experiences. Also, he graduated from Yale and is a professor at Princeton so one would think he should be pretty trustworthy.

(source: http://www.cwsglobal.org/newsroom/news-releases/cws-supports-bipartisan.html)