S.A. #3 The Future of Reading

When most people think of scientific papers, a contemplation on the future of Nooks and Kindles is probably not the first thing to come to mind.  However,  Johan Lehrer uses the arrangement of a scientific paper in his article "The Future of Reading."  Although not blatant catagorized, or clearly labeled as a a normal paper of that sort should be, Lehrer cleanly lays out his paper following Alan Gross' model of introduction, results, discussion. 

Alan Gross is the author of "The Arrangement of the Scientific Paper," and says in this essay "a picture of the discovery process as a path-like sequence of logical steps." (89).  Lehrer follows this path begining his article with an introduction.  He starts with the background of what he thinks to let the reader know from what beliefs he will be arguing, saying immediately "I think it’s pretty clear that the future of books is digital."  He also gives the reader a condensed history of the radio as a model to compare the evolution of books against.  This gives the readers a context to place this argument in.  Gross states that "reports begin by placing the incidents they report in the context of a research program whose goal is the discovery of natural laws." (89).  Lehrer then moves to the "results" portion of his article showing the readers facts that came from a nueroscientist.  Showing the readers his methods, helps gain their support and trust. 

At the end of his paper, Lehrer summarizes his thoughts and concludes that if Nooks, Kindles and the like were to make it more difficult for people to passively read, the reader would comprehend things much better "We won’t just scan the words – we will contemplate their meaning."  By following Gross' model this article transforms itself from a blog post of pure opinion, to an intellectual article of thought and intention.  To follow Gross' logical steps will help other writers as well form clear and easy to understand arguments.  

S.A. #2 Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

In this open letter to President Clinton, a group of concerned men have come together in the interest of the United States and its allies to urge the president to take action and address the need of a new foreign policy in the Middle East.  The group pushes him to use his upcoming State of the Union address to outline his plan of handling the crisis in Iraq. However, the aim is not merely to target the President, but also to engage politically-active citizens in this call for policy change. 

This letter demonstrates how easily Kinneavy's genres can blur.  In his text, Kinneavy describes when a writer "embod[ies] his personal or group aspirations in a discourse, the discourse tends to be expressive." (303).  This would hold true if it were not for the fact that the intended reading of this letter depends entirely on how the audience interprets it.  Due to this, the focus shifts from a genre of expressive to that of persuasive.  The encoders are trying to sway the decoders to follow their intended course of action.  Hopefully, the writers will succeed in subscribing the readers to the determined goal.

The fact that this letter is much more focused on how the reader would have interpreted it, than what the writer actually puts on paper really is decided based on by whom the letter is written.  To the general public, these names may not mean much, but to President Clinton, these names would have completely altered the way he read this piece.  The audience construction is the most crucial part of a political writing (especially for one with an agenda like this).  The writers of this piece know that Clinton is not on their side, and because of that, they have to tailor the letter to make it something that he may actually read without bias or constantly thinking of the writer's motives.  For those not familiar with the signers of this letter, some of the notables are (among many others of the same political party): Elliott Abrams- a senior policy analyst who served for two Republican Presidents, Richard Armitage- the secretary of state who served under George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld- the secretary of defense who also under two Republican Presidents.  Due to these highly politicized writers, Clinton would have taken this writing with some serious doubt in the back of his head. This is why audience construction is so crucial.  The meaning of any writing is useless if the readers does not trust the writer.

Although the explicit goal of this letter was to convince Clinton, and the American public to see the need for a change in foreign policy, this letter can also be read as an example of how a reader's stance or background can determine how a text is read.  If the reader came into the text with no background knowledge of the authors, had no political stance, or personal opinions about foreign policy in the Middle East, the reading and understanding of this text would be altered dramatically.  After reading this text, it is now easier to see how essential writing to the correct audience makes the utmost difference in the understood meaning of a text.

S.A. 1: Honesty is Always the Best Policy

Climate change is controversial.  No one can deny that.  If you asked my dad what he thought of it, he would explain vehemently that scientists made it all up to sell a Prius or two.  But Michael Lemonick presents a very different, non-biased way of handling climate change in his article "Honesty Is Always the Best Policy."

Lemonick is advocating for a different type of scientific writing- one that pushes away from sensationalism and speaks honestly and openly to readers.  Concentrated at the beginning of his article is the most essential part of his entire writing.  Jack Selzer in "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers" calls it "ethos."  He explains that this is "the trustworthiness and credibility of the rhetor" (284).  This is an essential element any writer needs to have in order to have their point taken seriously.  Lemonick uses ethos beautifully in the way that presents himself as a very honest man, one who actually practices what he preaches.

At the beginning he comes straight out with the fact that amidst of a crowd of journalists who want to change the world, he simply does it because it provides him with a way to make a living.  This blatant honesty is rarely seen, and hardly expected by a reader.  By making comments like that, or admiting to the sensationalism of past articles, the reader grows to trust him.  Without this bond between author and audience, the article loses its validity. 

He keeps true to his trustworthy character throughout the article.  When he confesses that he was "tempted" to sensationalize his story, not only does is show flaw and provide him with a more human-esque quality, but it also clearly separates him for the other (guilty) writers who commit this fault.  The constant examples of his honest persona build rapport with the audience, which makes his position all the more believable.  With that kind of writing, he might even convince my dad that all scientists are not the liars he believes them to be.