Blind Progress

In Jonah Lehrer's article "The Future of Reading", he clearly expresses his love of reading and the written word. In the piece he discusses the fact that technology is causing major changes in the way that reading is being done. As an author Lehrer uses his degree in neuroscience and literary training to bring common issues into a slightly different light. His writing takes on a scientific mood while remaining entertaining. I find this interesting, because his article seems to be working in both a scientific and literary way.

In their piece "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument", Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor discuss that scientific articles go through the statses of "face, definition, and cause" (436). I found this to be true in Lehrer's article. He begins with the fact that our world is going digital. He then goes on to define why he is wary of such advancements by bringing to light how different formatted text is perceived by the brain. He states that "the words will shimmer on the screen, but the sentences will be quickly forgotten" (Lehrer, Future of Reading). The cause which he presents is that the brain can more easily read text on an electronic screen, but comprehension is hindered. Lehrer goes on to incoporate the last two stases mentioned by Fahnestock and Secor of evaluation and proposal. The fact that he does this makes it clear that this is no dry scientific blog. Lehrer wishes to connect with his audience by drawing them in and incorporating his literary style in with his scientific findings.

Lehrer's very first sentence and paragraph introduces an idea that "the future of books is digital". This tells much about the audience he is writing for and what he assumes his readers know and have experienced. If he were writing for citizens of a country other than one that is culturally connected to books, he may not be able to make this generalization. Lehrer, being from England, is also used to a literary culture. Also, the fact that he has had an extensive educational background make it unlikely that he woul dbe writing for an audience he has no understanding of. The fact that this article is published on a scientific blog also makes it more geared towards those who care about the functions of the brain.

Lehrer makes his text entertaining by not only appealing to his audiences love of science, but to books as well. He does not simply give a factual account of the process of reading. He carefully incorperates this information while using literary moves to draw his reader in. He does not neglect the fact that his audience is made up of those who choose to read for the fun of it. The piece would have no effect on someone who can not relate to his love for reading. Those who do, however, are most likely impressed by his ability to make neuroscience interesting.

SA 2: "One Day, Now Broken in Two"

Anna Quindlen's article, "One Day, Now Broken In Two" speaks to those who were affected by the bombings of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Within this article, she attempts to bring her audience together by recollecting this horrific time by discussing how she and the entire country have worked to live with the devistation. It feels to me that Quindlen is attempting to appeal to her readers by drawing out their strong emotions regarding the attack. She does this by mentioning her son and how the day of his birth, September 11th, will always be joyful and heartbreaking. It seems that Quindlen is expecting those reading her article to share this same feeling due to the loss of a loved one in the bombings.

If we take Ong's chapter, "The Audience is Always Fiction" into consideration and entire new layer is added to Quindlen's piece. I feel that as she was writing her article she was imagining her audience to be those who feel pain and horror when recollecting the bombings of September 11th. It is interesting to thingk about how this article could be changed by simply shifting the tone in which she speaks. While this article feels strong epideictic, a few small changes could shift the focus entirely. If Quindlen had chosen to take a deliberative approach on the issue, she could have imagined her audience to be those who are very bitter about the bombings and wish to take violent action. It may be a stretch, but the piece could be a call for even further revolt from Americans. By asking the question "Who are we now?" she gives the reader a choice as to what type of responder they wish to be. This could also be seen as a mocking statment used to presuade readers into taking action.

This article could easily be shifted by a few simple sarcastic undertones used to enrage Quindlen's already upset readers. Her current article seems to be having a conversation, as well as sympathizing, with those who were beaten down and terrified by the disaster, but she could have writtne it to aim for those who wish to take revenge on the attackers by simply shifting her focus ever so slightly.

Community in Action SA 1

After reading Terkels piece, Community in Action, I came away with the strong feeling that his intent is to speak positively about the practice of working together within a community. This idea can be further solidified by looking at the context in which the article was written. As he says in the article, Terkel was alive at the time of the Great Depression. He speaks of his memories of his community coming together in order to help their neighbors, and how he believes that it was these acts of kindness which brought the country out of its depression. An example of this is his statement that "it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does".

It is clear that Terkel is a very straight forward speaker who does not try to hind his intentions. He does, however understand the need to appeal to the readers in order to gain their support. In this article, I feel that he is appealing to the logos or logic, of the readers. He states his claim very clearly and gives reasons why it is best for people to work together as opposed to one man working alone. Terkel claims that "the individual discovers his strength as an individual because he has discovered others share his feelings". This also appeals to the values, or pathos, of his readers, because, although he is not writing to those during the Great Depression, the right of individuality is a strong value for those in our country today. It is a right that we take very seriously, and by bringing it up Terkel has incorporated a key American value and shown how this plan of working together can be used to accomplish individuality.

It is interesting to note the fact that his article is published on a radio stations website and was first spoken on the air. It appears to be a very liberal station where everyone is free to speak their beliefs. The title of the show is "This I Believe" which leaves it open to all. When considering this aspect, which Terkel was very aware of while writing, he was most likely writing to liberal people who greatly value individuality and the freedom of fordging ones owe path throughout life.