tehcnology doesnt effect my writing, rite?

Clive Thompson wrote an article describing how he felt that the "New Literacy" that was up and coming in this generation was not as detrimental as many think it is. Most people believe that in this generation, my generation, technology is taking over how we write and communicate with each other. One John Sutherland describes our writing as, "bleak, bald, sad shorthand." I could not disagree more with Sutherland's accusations.

I know that these accusations are false. I am a teenager/young adult who grew up in the age of technology and instant messaging. I never once used “txt” language in a formal writing for school. Once I moved past the 6th grade, I never even used “txt” language to begin with. Not on instant messaging, not on Facebook, or anything like that. I feel that it looks extremely sloppy and lazy, as well as it shows that you have no patience to write out a full word. If you are too lazy to write out the word “you” and instead resort to “u”, you need some serious motivation because that is only two extra letters you need to type. I believe that technology may have only made us smarter in the sense that we are now exposed to more writing and rhetoric than ever before. We have a spell-check in Word which helps us remember how to correctly spell words, we have all of these online articles being published by professionals who know what they are doing so we are exposed to how they write, which is always correct. It is simply a stage of life that most kids go through around 5th-6th-7th grade. They get lazy and think they are cool when they type “how r u” or “nmjc” instead of “hey how’s it going?” or “I’m good man, how about you?” Once they move on from that stage, usually by high school, they realize how stupid it looks and how immature they sounded. I would know, because I was one of those kids.

The claims that Thompson is making are quite accurate in my opinion. Thompson argues that technology is helping kids these days to write better and more often. In earlier generations, you would never see people writing other than for school or if it was their profession. Nowadays, you see people writing in blogs such as these, or just for recreation. They write for an audience which can play a very pivotal part in their writings. One thing I know for sure is that Mr. Sutherland could not be more wrong on this one.

Rhetorical Situation and All of it's Friends

The ASPCA is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Have they convinced you to donate yet? Every time one of these commercials comes on the TV, I can't help but feel awful for these poor animals. They have been left behind and beaten by their ownersm but ASPCA is giving them a home.

The audience of this ad can really be anyone, but mainly people that love animals, specifically dog lovers. The ASPCA is targeting these people with just a small portion of the dog's face, but thats all they need. The sad eyes that appear to be slightly beaten will get all the repsonse they need from these people. The purpose is quite obvious, which is to get people to donate to this organization in order to provide a home for these animals. The exigence here is the cruelty that animals suffer from their owners. These people abuse, beat and may not even feed their pet cats and dogs, leaving them to die. The ASPCA does an excellent job of supporting these animals, as they have over 1 million members that are apart of their foundation.

There are three main components of selling an ad to the audience. Pathos, Logos and Ethos. Pathos is the component that appeals to the audience's emotions, be it anger, joy, sympathy, and so on. In this ad we can clearly see that they do a good job of appealing to our emotions. People who have even the slightest liking towards dogs will be affected by this ad. The infamous "puppy eyes" tug at our hearts and really get us feeling sympathetic. For those not affected by this, the text will get the rest of us. "Her life is in your hands." Could you feel worse about seeing this and not doing anything about it. Most of us will probably see this ad and move on with life feeling bad, but man, having the feeling that the poor dog's life is in your hands? That's some heavy stuff. The next component, Logos, is the reasoning, or logic, behind the piece. This ad once again does an excellent job ob portraying logic. It makes complete sense to donate to this organziation, and that these animals need our help. Clearly this dog has been beaten and mistreated, so it makes sense to help them out. In some of their other ads, the ASPCA shows a malnourished cat, or a cowering dog in a cage. It's quite logical to donate to this foundation and help the animals out. The third and final component is Ethos, which is the credibility of the writer or in this case, the foundation. With the ASPCA logo there on the bottom, it only encourages you to check out their website and convince you of their legitimacy. As mentioned before, they do have over 1 million members of their foundation, so it would seem that it is a credible and legitimate foundation. They mean business and take it very seriously.

Am I trying to sell you on the ASPCA and to donate? Absolutely not, but it is for a good cause. I myself have not donated to the ASPCA but I completely understand and respect everything they stand for. I hope this has helped you to further understand how companies advertise themselves and the meaning of rhetorical situation, Ethos, Pathos and Logos.

Thanks for reading!

My Writing Process...If That's What You Would Call It

I have always felt that my writings could be better in some way. I have never developed a true writing process, but I don't think it’s time that I did. 95% of the time when I need to write something, whether it be a paper, response, or even a blog like this, I don’t sit down and plan what I will write. If I am writing a five page essay for an exam, I will then take the time to sit down and generate one, but other than I rarely make one. I usually feel it is best to just sit down at the computer and write freely what comes to my mind about the subject at hand. However, this does not mean that I am a one-and-done guy; I like to break the work up and pace myself. 

               After I have finished with all of the writing, I will then go back and re-read what I have written and then be done with it. I prefer not to use so much time on planning what I could be writing when I could actually be writing and letting my mind run. I feel that I write best when I am letting it all flow from my head at the moment, instead of basing it off of some notes I had written down. I feel that if I did that, I would be limiting myself and my brain in what I could create, as opposed to simply writing whatever I think of and then checking it over afterwards. I think this process works out for me pretty well most of the time, as long as I have a decent knowledge of the topic I am writing on. If the subject is one I am not too familiar with, I will research it, take some notes, and then let my mind do the rest. One of the biggest problems I have with writing in general is not having a true sense of how to properly write a well-constructed paper. I never took a legitimate English class in high school, so I never had the training of writing a “three-point paper” or anything like that. I feel that for not having taken any legitimate classes that I am a pretty good writer, but there is always something to improve on.