TOW #29 - Letter to a New APELC Student

Dear New APELC Student,

Welcome! I know that when I was in your position, everyone I talked to about this class told me I would become a better writer. To be honest, I didn't think that was true. I thought of writing as something that couldn't really be taught; either you were good at it or you weren't. But looking back on my writing from before taking this class, I can tell that I didn't have a very good grasp of how to best construct my writing to convey my point effectively. My writing wasn't bad, but I didn't structure my arguments with the intent to appeal to a specific audience, and I definitely didn't consciously use rhetorical devices. (Sometimes I would accidentally stumble upon one, but they work much better when you employ them deliberately!) When we began analyzing texts, it became clearer and clearer how much thought authors put into how they phrase their message. If you work hard enough on your own writing and employ the techniques that you learn about and study in class, your writing can absolutely improve, and you'll be able to see that with each passing essay (of which you'll write many).

This class requires you to be focused and participatory with your learning. Analyzing a text may not feel fun or easy, but it'll get better with practice and it'll definitely help you with your writing. Something I struggled with in the beginning was identifying the author's purpose, but after a while you start to see patterns in the writing. If you see a certain rhetorical device, it may point to one purpose, but a different rhetorical device would change the message. It varies and isn't an exact science, but you'll figure it out soon enough. Don't be discouraged by any of your essay grades, either. You're not expected to be churning out 9's right away, or even 6's or 7's. Everything in this class comes with practice. Writing is a process, and this course is a process. Once you reach the end, everything will make sense and be worth it. You'll be a better writer who is better able to read and analyze texts, which will make you a better informed citizen. There really are no downsides to taking this course.

TOW #28 - Reflection

I think over this year, I've gotten better at synthesizing the way that different rhetorical devices work together in order to achieve the author's overall purpose. For instance, in TOW #9, I identified different devices that were used satirically in order to show how sensationalized news is. But in TOW #18, I discussed how an author used quotes to support her credibility, but also pointed out that she analyzed them in a way that made her argument into an ad hominem attack. One rhetorical device or strategy can do two totally different (though not necessarily contradictory) things for your argument, and I think I learned to recognize that later on.

I think I mastered identifying purpose. In the beginning of the year, that was definitely something that confused me, but now I have a better intuitive understanding of what the author is trying to say. I'm able to pick up on how the rhetorical devices they use can indicate their purpose. I could probably still improve my identification of the subtler rhetorical devices. I still tend to notice mainly diction, allusions, usage of quotes, and I know there are many others that I could dig deeper for that are probably affecting the presentation of the author's purpose.

I think these TOWs helped by keeping analysis fresh in our minds. I was grateful that we kept doing analysis on our own so that when the AP exam came, it wasn't completely unfamiliar to have to write an analysis essay. But I often felt like I didn't have the time to take them seriously enough for them to have as big an effect on my analysis skills as they could have, since I would forget about them until Sunday evening. (Just being honest.) I also felt like I didn't always need the extra practice from TOWs. I think they are most beneficial to students who really want to improve their skills and take them seriously, but I think they're useful for everyone regardless.

TOW #26 - "It's Sugar-Free" (Visual)

This ad uses a familiar scene with a twist in order to subvert the reader's expectations and force them to consider the message for longer. When a person usually sees ants, they typically are headed in a straight line towards any source of sugar. If you drop even a minuscule piece of candy on the floor, it will be swarmed within minutes. Which is why a viewer of this ad would take a second to pause. They see a piece of candy, which looks to be delicious and sugary and exactly something any self-respecting ant or kindergartner would make a beeline for. However, the ants are avoiding it as if it's poison, and this is explained by the phrase "It's sugar-free". This phrase is cleverly placed in the area towards which the ants are headed, so the reader's eye is naturally drawn to it. It provides a simple explanation to the dilemma that the reader is subconsciously trying to resolve as they look at the ad. On the other side of the ad, where the line of ants starts, is the logo of the company, which is notably brighter and more colorful than the rest of the ad. This makes it easily noticeable and ensures that the reader will remember which brand is distributing this ad. It also restates the main point of the ad, which is that their candy is sugar-free.

Sugar-free is an interesting selling point for this company to choose, instead of, for instance, the quality or taste of their candy, or interesting flavors that they have. However, it allows them to potentially appeal to both adults and kids. The candy looks delicious and sweet, which would make any kid clamor for a lollipop. However, it being sugar-free is not immediately obvious, but of course would be appreciated by adults trying to avoid giving their kids sugar rushes or not rot their teeth. The outdoors image of the ants also appeals to kids who love playing outside and insects, and would associate this brand with that setting.

TOW #24 - Water Changes Everything (Visual)

This advertisement is for a charity that provides water to those in third world countries who don't have any. It's a very minimalist design, with a white background that draws focus to the meal in the center of the ad. Beneath the picture are two lines of text, one say "Water changes everything", and the other with the name of the charity's website. This ad uses clever wordplay by asserting that water changes everything, and showing an example of a classic meal -- spaghetti -- without water. Obviously, water is integral to the production of this very basic meal, and even more integral to the daily lives of all human beings. This ad can help open people's eyes to seeing how even when we don't think about a meal containing water, it still has an effect on its outcome.

The use of sharp angles and lines in this ad help direct the viewer's eyes towards what its author wants them to look at. For instance, the two hands holding utensils first direct the reader to look at the plate of uncooked spaghetti. After the reader has noted the irregularity, the straight spaghetti points downward towards the tagline and the website. This arrangement leaves the viewers' eyes at the ideal ending point -- the website -- so that it sticks in their mind and they're more likely to visit it. It gives the ad maximum effectiveness. The colors also play an important role in the reader's interpretation of the ad. The whiteness of the background and plate invoke a sense of cleanliness and sanitation, which is probably one of the main goals of this water organization - to provide clean water. White is also a religious color, and religion ties into helping others and charity. The red and yellow of the spaghetti are striking and also help to draw the reader's eye there first. Finally, the black text on the white background set it apart and create a serious tone.

TOW #23 - The Battle to Keep French Pure is Doomed (Written)

This article is about the French language adopting more and more loanwords from English, and the author's worry that this may pollute the language. The interesting thing is that this article is written in English, by a French-speaking author. Because of this, her audience becomes unclear. If she is trying to reach francophones, she is using entirely the wrong language. However, there is really nothing that anglophones can do to alleviate the problem she writes about. In this case, I believe that her purpose is less about fixing the issue and more about offering her thoughts on it to those who speak a different language. English has always happily accepted words and structures from other languages, without worrying about "purity", so a new perspective on the idea is very much appreciated. She explains how "pure" French is very elegant and refined, and that modern French, with its Anglicisms and loanwords, sounds choppy and foreign.

Another interesting facet of this conversation is that France has the "Académie française" that supposedly keeps the purity of the language intact, but it can only determine which words are "technically" in the language. It cannot control which words the people decide to use. On the flip side, the French Canadians who use the French language as well on a daily basis don't have such a society, but socially, they reject very strongly the idea of English loanwords. While the French use "le parking", the Quebécois use "le stationnement". Despite being closer to America and having an arguably more American culture, they still manage to better preserve their language and guard against loanwords and foreign influences. However, many French francophones consider Canadian French an abomination of their language. It's obviously difficult to balance an appreciation for one's own language as it is and the desire for it to change and evolve with a changing world landscape.

TOW #21 - Yes, Please (IRB Post)

I'm about halfway through with Amy Poehler's autobiography Yes, Please, and I really enjoy it so far. I think her use of pictures is unique. Most other authors don't use quite as many pictures to get their point across -- maybe one in the whole book, or a few just to illustrate one large event. But Poehler has pictures at the beginning of every chapter, and interspersed within her stories as well. This overabundance of visual texts gives another layer to her writing, forcing the reader to analyze why she might have chosen to include that particular picture of her stand-up sketch comedy or why that picture of her and her parents might have some sort of emotional resonance. It also helps give the reader a better visualization of the events of her life. She understands that some of her readers may not be familiar with her work outside of the SNL, so she includes pictures so they can understand more easily the tone and character of her work.

Another interesting thing I notice that Poehler uses is that she occasionally breaks off from the narrative of her life into a comedic bit. For instance, after discussing her own pregnancy and the emotions she felt surrounding it, she ends the chapter with a fake letter she pretends to have written with her husband to the hospital staff. In it, she details all the ridiculous amenities they would like to be provided with in order to make the birth more comfortable. I believe she uses this humor as a way to poke fun at herself and keep the tone of the book lighthearted. She doesn't want to be accused of taking herself too seriously, which is always a possibility when one writes a book about themselves. Her humor regarding her divorce (in which she talks about a series of "real divorce help books" with silly titles and terrible advice) also prevent the tone from dipping into something too serious and dark. She assures the reader that she has long moved on from that painful event and invites them to laugh with her, taking the focus off of herself (ironically, since this is an autobiography) and putting the focus onto the happy side of the situation.

TOW #20 - Holy Writ (Written)

Holy Writ, an article in the New Yorker by Mary Norris, details the events in her life leading up to becoming a copy editor for the New Yorker, and ends with some reflection on the decisions she makes during her work and their impact. Her general message was somewhat similar to Lynne Truss' in Eats Shoots & Leaves -- punctuation is important and should be paid attention to. However, her approach was much more forgiving. She admits that the New Yorker's style guide is not something that works for all forms of writing, but she also argues that there is a definite reason for every single style choice she makes, and that that reason isn't superfluous or nitpicky.

She uses examples of sentences that fit and do not fit the New Yorker style to illustrate her points for the reader. This helps frame her argument in solid proof of how her commas function in their sentences. She uses the sentence "When I was in high school, at Horace Mann, in the Bronx, in the nineteen-seventies, everyone took pride in the brilliant eccentricity of our teachers" to show the reader how commas are placed to separate extraneous details from the rest of the sentence. She argues that her commas delineate information that is not essential to the meaning of the phrase, and by giving an example of this, she helps the reader shift their views about comma overuse.

She also provides a counterargument at the end of her article to show that "proper" comma usage isn't always necessary. She talks about a book by the author James Salter, and points out three or four sentences that have commas she disagrees with. She says that if they were in the New Yorker, they would have been taken out, so she was curious why they were left in the novel. She asks the author himself, and relays that information to the reader, giving them a positive viewpoint of the other side of the argument from a reliable, credible source. Salter argues that the commas give rhythm and focus to the sentences in which he placed them, and Norris concedes that although her usual dealings with commas are about whether they are used "properly", style-wise, they can be used in an artful way that bends a few rules.