Jonah Lehrer's Writing With a John D. Ramage Touch

There are many different ways one can get their point across. Some people feel that there are scientific methods to writing, and John D. Ramage is one of these people. In fact, his method is seen in Jonah Lehrer's article, "The Future of Reading." Ramage feels that one should begin with answering the, "What's your point?" question, which Lehrer does. He also uses Ramage's stases theory, which has five different questions. He feels that "Proposing answers to these questions and responding to others' answers to these questions constitute our point; and our immediate purpose is to make that point with an audience" (Ramage 103). Lehrer does this, and in the following paragraphs, we will see how.

The first question that Ramage feels should be addressed is, "What is this thing?" Lehrer answers this question in the very first paragraph; obviously, the 'thing' in the text is the digital book. This question/answer combination is pretty straightforward, and it leads into the next question in Ramage's model, "How much is this thing like/unlike that thing?" This resemblance question is certainly conquered by Lehrer's writing. He spends most of the article comparing books and digital books. In order to get the attention of the audience, he compares digital books to i-pods, pod casts, ect. to the radio, which is not used as often these days due to these technological developments. He then goes into his personal thoughts about books to his apprehensions of digital books, which is a great comparison method. After this, he takes a turn by stating advantages of the digital book, "It's never been easier to buy books, read books, or read about books you might want to buy. How can that not be good?" (Lehrer). Finally, to grab the audience even more, he states his 'nagging problem' with books in digital form, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It's constantly making it easier for us to perceive content" (Lehrer). Stating these variations show how these two things have likes and differences.

This last quote also answers the third question in Ramage's method, "Why did this thing happen?" Lehrer is alluding to the fact that digital books were created due to accessibility and ease. That is what Ramage would say "motivated its occurrence." Lehrer mentions many things that answer Ramage's forth question, "How good or bad is this thing?" Ramage would say that Lehrer uses the evaluative term of 'bad' in his article, which is a verb. Although, Lehrer states that the accessibility and ease of the digital book is a good thing (quote mentioned above), he finds that the ultimate idea of it is bad. He shows this opinion when he says, "making content easier and easier to see -- could actually backfire with books. We will trade away understanding for perception. The words will shimmer on the screen, but the sentences will be quickly forgotten" (Lehrer). He accepts the ease of the digital book, he even admits to using his Kindle at night because it is so easy; however, he feels that this idea will make the readers get less out of the text that they are reading, "I worry that, before long, we'll become so used to the mindless clarity of e-ink -- to these screens that keep on getting better -- that the technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts" (Lehrer). In other words, Lehrer feels that if the reader continues to read the high definition digital books, they will no longer want to challenge themselves.

Finally, Ramage's last question, "What should we do about this thing?" is also answered in "The Future of Reading." Lehrer comes right out and says, "So here's my wish for e-readers. I'd love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult. Perhaps we need to alter the fonts, or reduce the contrast" (Lehrer). He clearly states what should be done about this issue on digital books, he feels that we should make the picture not quite as clear, that way, "We won't just scan the words -- we will contemplate their meaning" (Lehrer) therefore, getting more out of the text.

Although, all reading is not written scientifically--all reading does have some form of organized (hopefully) arrangement. If an author is attempting to construct a persuasive article/text, I definitely feel that they should lay their writing out scientifically. Posing and answering the questions that Ramage has listed is a great way to organize a report, article, or any persuasive text. It not only walks the reader step-by-step through what is going on with the issue and why, but it also helps the author sway the audience into thinking the way that they do.

Different Aims and Genres of Texts

Although, Kinneavy may see many different genre categories in the text "One day, Now Broken in Two" by Anna Quindlen--I do not see a set genre for the whole text. This text, which speaks about the events that happened on September 11, 2001 seems to have a mixture of three different genres. I see the following three genres blurred together to make one text: memorial, reflection, and persuasion. I believe that Quindlen shows these three genres very explicitly. Memorial is shown throughout her writing, one example is when she says, "The American People used their own simple routines to muffle the horror they felt looking at the indelible loop of tape--the plane, the flames, the plane, the fire, the falling bodies, the falling buildings." This excerpt describing 9-11 illustrates the way memory comes into play in the text. She also uses reflection with her own experiences, and with her family, "September 11 is my eldest child's birthday." Lastly, I see persuasion many times in Quindlen's writing; this is obviously shown here, "We are people of two minds now, the one that looks forward and the one that unwillingly and unexpectedly flashes back." By using the term 'we,' she is putting herself into the equation, but she is also telling her audience how they feel or how they should feel about the past and present.

Just like the many genres, this text also shows more than one of Kenneavy's 'Basic Purposes of Composition' principles. First and far most, Quindlen's text is quite referential--I believe that Kinneavy would agree with this. He describes this principle as "Discourse dominated by subject matter (reality talked about) is called referential discourse" (301). The piece is definitely driven by the subject of 9-11--that is the basis of the whole text. Kinneavy splits this referential standard into three parts: exploratory, which asks questions; informative, which answers questions; scientific, which proves the answer. Looking at Kinneavy's definitions of these three categories, I would determine that this text could fall under any category. Quindlen asks many questions in this article, which could cause this article to be exploratory, "Who are we now?" She is asking who we are as United States citizens. She also answers these questions, "We are people whose powers have been challenged by the revelations of the careful planning..." Although, this article does not show nearly as much of the scientific side of things--Quindlen does prove her answers, at least as she views them. She also brings in the optimist's, pessimist's, and the realist's views to prove her point. Although, Kinneavy may not agree with my thought here, I can view this text as also having scientific qualities.

From what has been said, it can be thought that Anna Quindlen writes quite a referential piece, I can also say that her piece is quite persuasive. Kinneavy says persuasive discourse is "discourse which focusses on eliciting a specific reaction from the decoder and is dominated by this request for reaction emerges as persuasion or rhetoric" (301). Although, I feel that the persuasiveness of Quindlen comes second to her referential style, she definitely has a persuasive flair to her writing. You especially see this in the very last sentence when she states, "That is the way we have to live, or we cannot really go on living at all." She is swaying the audience to go on living in two parts after the 9-11 attack, to remember 9-11, but know that September 11 is still a normal day on the calendar.

Lastly, with such subject matter, it is important to take a look at Quindlen's audience. She is certainly talking to American citizens. This article would not be effective if it was read by someone who lives in another country. Although, they may feel for the United States--they will not be able to relate to the actual 9-11 attacks. Quindlen relates to her audience by putting herself in her writing, by using the term 'we' instead of 'you,' and by being an American herself. This scenario makes Kinneavy's triangle very easily put together, we have the encoder, who is Anna Quindlen, the American, the decoder, which is the readers--also Americans, and the reality, which is 9-11.

In conclusion, it is easy to see that "One Day, Now Broken in Two" follows two of Kinneavy's key principles, referential and persuasive. This proves that his strategies are not static, in fact, there are many genres that could fit into all of his standards. We can also conclude that this article would not be nearly as powerful if read by a non-U.S. citizen, it needs to have an audience that can relate to the reality that it is speaking of.

Keeping Writing Honest

"Honesty is Always the Best Policy" by Michael Lemonick

Michael Lemonick  uses deliberative rhetoric in his article "Honesty is Always the Best Policy" to prove that keeping the truth in one's writing is the best course of action when writing to an audience. You see his deliberative movements many times throughout his text when he attempts to sway the reader to think like he does. Along with his deliberative rhetoric, he also appears to have an epideictic undertone when speaking about truthful science writing, which is when one uses "ceremonial discourse used to create and reinforce community values" (Selzer 284). You see this undertone when he speaks about his writing "I loved this story--it was about the physical sciences, it was clearly a big deal, and it was new and surprising to me."

Lemonick demonstrates the positive outcomes that using ethos effectively can do for one's writing. He connects with the audience by establishing his credibility on the topic of honesty in writing by using his experiences, writing about science--mostly global warming. He does this by beginning his article stating what he does, and why he does it. This elocutio (arrangement) is a great way to allow the readers to follow more closely. He slowly leads up to the topic of honesty in writing--giving the reader ample time to understand what is taking place in the text.

He also uses ethos by showing the ways that he uses truth in his own writing, "I'm still refining my own sense of judgement, weighing when it's important to give a study's weaknesses prominence and when to mention them on the side, focusing instead on the broader truth that climate change is real and potentially dangerous." Lemonick is also seen using the Aristotelian term pathos when talking directly to the audience about telling the truth in writing. By speaking directly to them, he is building a relationship, and showing them how honesty is a community value. Using this term assists Lemonick in persuading the audience to believe that honesty really is the best policy.

As we can see, Lemonick uses ethos and pathos to persuade his audience to write and read honest work. These tools are very well suited for this article because they both aid in connecting to the readers; therefore, making it easier to sway their thoughts one way or the other.