TOW #7: Article (The Other Side of the American Revolution)

This opinion piece was written by Clayton McCleskey, who "is a contributing writer for The Dallas Morning News based in Washington." That gives him some credibility, although he doesn't need much since this is an opinion piece and he is therefore not obligated to be entirely accurate (unless he actually wants to make readers listen). McCleskey begins by mentioning the use of the Union Jack in the American Revolution. A select few would be bothered by this, but it unfortunately destroys his credibility in my eyes; at the time (and even technically until today) the flag was only called the Union Jack when flown on a ship of the Royal Navy. Otherwise, it was just a flag.

McCleskey convinces the reader that America misunderstands much of history by appealing to the reader's prejudices. He writes, "Misconceptions abound, from Sarah Palin’s belief that Paul Revere warned the British to the tea party’s rather misguided view of the true tax burden on the colonists." Those who dislike Palin and the tea party are likely to agree with McCleskey lest they be as ignorant as they find their enemies. I personally do not agree with the referenced politicians, so I find the comment humorous and relatable.

To end the peace, McCleskey appeals to nationalism by writing, "In the end, the history of the American loyalists is one of reconciliation and unity in the wake of bitter divides." This warm and fuzzy lesson is meant to soothe the readers after McCleskey told them that their knowledge of American history was likely incorrect or incomplete. After all, what's an essay about America without some display of national pride?

In my opinion, McCleskey well distributed his ideas to whatever newspaper reader was bored enough to pay attention to the editorials. Despite the Union Jack mishap, he drew in an audience and presented his main argument as indisputable fact, making him sound knowledgeable and credible. I'm not sure how well he would do in his Texas crowd, considering the jabs at Palin and the tea party, but in normal parts of the country he would be successful.

This picture accompanied McCleskey's article.

How... charming.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20110701-clayton-mccleskey-the-other-side-of-the-american-revolution-.ece

TOW #6: Article (London Can't Become Home Only to the Rich)

Unfortunately, this article on The Guardian's editorials website does not have a cited author, which damages its credibility. Fortunately, this is the only flaw I can find in the piece. Its overall purpose is to persuade readers that London is being overrun by billionaires investing in property and driving the lower classes out.  It begins with a list of past Londoners' achievements. The author writes, "Hiram Maxim perfected his machine gun there; Sebastian de Ferranti his dynamos and Guglielmo Marconi his electric telegraph. Clerkenwell's people were cabinet makers, brass workers and glass shade and globe makers." This list evokes a sense of pride and accomplishment surrounding the city. The author then explains how London is being changed by the congregation of the wealthy and eviction of the poor. The article states, "Already some senior business leaders have voiced fears that the capital is likely to lose out to cities such as Berlin in the race to become Europe's major digital hub since London is simply unaffordable for many young enterprising tech workers." By contrasting London's successful past with its grim future, the author demonstrates the kind of economic and cultural center that England is at risk of losing due to limited diversity. The article also utilizes numerous statistics and numbers that add credibility to its argument.

I began reading the article knowing only that London is an expensive city, but I now agree with the author that the rich need to stop investing in London property if the city has any hope of flourishing. Although I am not a typical reader of The Guardian's editorials (and am neither British nor an adult), the author's success in persuading me probably indicates that his or her purpose was achieved among the target audience, as well. The article was well-written and seemingly accurate, making it an effective persuasive essay.

Earl's Terrace, Kensington

The most expensive street in England and Wales, according to the article.

Kensington is a district of west London, according to Wikipedia.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/20/observer-editorial-london-preserve-rich

TOW #5: Visual Text (Book Cover: Eats, Shoots & Leaves)

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Lynne Truss

In order to sell Eats, Shoots & Leaves to a wider audience than grammar sticklers and English students, Truss (or rather, her publisher, Gotham Books) designed its cover to appeal to the common consumer who may not necessarily care about grammar. The illustration on the front cover appeals to ethos in two ways. First, the potential reader sees pandas, which make any object infinitely cuter. He or she then realizes that one of the pandas is holding a gun, which shocks him or her enough that "The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" does not effect as much terror or disgust as it typically would. The front also appeals to ethos using the advertisement, "The Runaway #1 British Bestseller," with #1 large and bright red. Such a possible book must be accurate and entertaining, or so the logic argues. The back cover appeals to both ethos and logos by citing positive reviews from respected and varied sources. Again, if this many people loved the book this deeply, then so will the common reader. The short explanation of the title is a humorous misunderstanding that implies that the book will be equally amusing. The story finishes with the sentence, "So, punctuation really does matter, even if it is only occasionally life or death." This conveys the book's purpose of teaching the importance of punctuation without alarming the reader with textbook-style writing.

In my opinion, Gotham Books designed or at least chose the cover well. It downplays punctuation enough that it doesn't look boring, although it is still the obvious topic of the book. It was a bestseller, so something must have been done correctly (and it probably wasn't just the content, unless British people care about grammar a lot more than Americans). Gotham actually managed to make a book about punctuation popular.

TOW #4: IRB (Outliers)

Malcolm Gladwell has written five books and has been a writer for The New Yorker since 1996. In Outliers, he examines the stories of outstandingly successful people and explains how their circumstances allowed them to achieve higher success than their peers. To demonstrate the significance of these circumstances, Gladwell frequently compares and contrasts similar subjects. For example, he explains why Christopher Langan is jobless while Robert Oppenheimer (who once attempted murder) became the scientific director of the Manhattan Project. He begins, "Oppenheimer and Langan might both be geniuses, but in other ways, they could not be more different" (98). The primary difference, Gladwell says, was their upbringings. Langan was raised by a poor mother who couldn't teach him the social skills that Oppenheimer's wealthy parents enforced upon him. After a series of unfortunate events, Langan was unable to defend himself and achieve the college experience needed to be a credible author, even though he has the talent and knowledge that Oppenheimer did. Oppenheimer was taught how to socialize effectively, allowing him to downplay his past and win a position in the Manhattan Project. Multiple comparisons like this one provide a thorough understanding of Gladwell's differentiation between success and failure.

Outliers begins with the history of Roseto, Pennsylvania, whose population consists primarily of Italian immigrants. In the 1950's, Roseto had astoundingly low rates of most causes of death, although its citizens had no visible advantages in diet or genetics. A physician named Stewart Wolf concluded that its lifestyle helped townspeople remain healthy. This was medically controversial, as it suggested that something so trivial as tri-generational households could have a prominent effect on overall health. Stewart states, "In Outliers, I want to do for our understanding of success what Stewart Wolf did for our understanding of health" (11). He wants his audience of intellects to recognize the seemingly meaningless details that ultimately allow a person to succeed, just as Wolf pointed out the "big picture" in health. Although I have only read the first of two parts, I think Stewart has already achieved his purpose. I might not know each of his specific points yet, but I understand that nothing is based solely on hard work or luck.