TOW #27: Give Blood (Visual Text)

With a student-council-sponsored blood drive coming up soon at Wissahickon, I decided to look at some Red Cross “give blood” posters for my TOW. Also, I am entirely out of good TOW ideas. The Red Cross is a humanitarian organization that provides assistance in the case of disaster or emergency. They often hold blood drives in which average American citizens can help the American Red Cross to help others through the donation of blood. Naturally, the idea of giving blood is not extremely appealing to most people, so the Red Cross must make their mission clear in posters, and use persuasive methods to get people to donate.

In this particular poster, the focal point is two band-aids, crossed over the center padded part to make a cross, similar in shape to the red cross symbol. The image shows that something very simple can make a big difference. In other words, the donor gets a band-aid, a fix to a small injury, and that small injury can help the Red Cross fix a much bigger injury in a person who really needs the help. The image is powerful in this sense. To accompany this image are two italicized words: “Give blood.” The short sentence emphasizes the power of the image, as its simplicity implies that all that needs to be said has been said already. The emotional appeal of the image in combination with the two words below make it effective. If one requires more information, there is a short paragraph below the image and the two words that describes the aim of blood donation. Using pronouns likes “we,” the American Red Cross includes the potential blood donors in one unit of people, creating a sense of togetherness that works for emotional persuasion. The paragraph also addresses the impact that the blood will have: “When we come together, we can become part of something bigger than us all.” Most people ultimately strive to be part of something bigger, whether that is some advancement of mankind, or a community, or a club, people love to feel they have a greater purpose. The idea that giving blood can make a person part of something larger makes it more appealing even to the queasy, like me. Thus, I believe, the poster was rather effective.

(for poster, see 2007 APELC synthesis question)

TOW #26: Letter from a Previous APELC Student (Written Text)

I was too stressed about mocks to look for a good TOW article (because a rhetorical analysis of an AP chemistry textbook does not quite sound like my idea of a good time. Also, I’ve already done a TOW on an AP chemistry prep book, and I wouldn’t want to be too repetitive!). I decided to Google “TOW AP English Blog,” figuring I would find someone else’s blog, choose one of their TOWs, find the article about which they were writing, and write my own TOW about it. Yes, as I’m writing this, I am realizing that if I were more of a dishonest person, I could quite easily have just copied someone else’s TOW instead of writing my own, but I wouldn’t do that, and did not even think about that as an option until just now. Anyway, I found something to write about! It seems that at the end of last year, students were assigned to write a letter on their blogs to future APELC students. I read one of the letters (why didn’t we get to read these at the beginning of the year?) and decided I would rhetorically analyze it.
The writer of this particular letter is Kayleigh Y. Kayleigh (woah, I can use her first name because I know her personally!) seems to be writing not so much to inform future students about what the year will entail as to quell the fears she had at the beginning of the year. She establishes a laid-back tone from the beginning, addressing a “Future APELC-er.” Her use of the fabricated word, “APELC-er,” as opposed to “AP English Language and Composition student,” makes her writing feel much less formal, and much more like a conversation between peers. Making her audience comfortable with her as a friendly speaker is essential to her achievement of her purpose, as a relaxed former student shows future students that APELC is for anyone with motivation, not just pretentious, but articulate writers, who are proud to be called “AP English Elitist Snobs” (that’s the Euro kids). Another strategy Kayleigh employs is the use of personal anecdotes. For example, she introduces herself as a student who had never, before junior year, taken any AP courses. Many juniors are in the same position she was in, so having a personal testimony from a student they know is much like them could help the “future APELC-er[s]” relax about the year ahead. Kayleigh closes her letter with the words “Most importantly though, don't be scared. You will be fine. :)” At the beginning of her letter, a future APELC student might not have believed that he or she would be “fine,” but by the end of Kayleigh’s description of the course, I think he or she would be much more inclined to believe her words. Overall, I not only think she achieved her purpose, but also, being an APELC student close to the end of junior year myself, agree with her.

TOW #25: Four Basic Rights (Written Text)

Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were generally forward-thinking for their time. The First Couple has a legacy of remembering the “forgotten man.” Even when FDR, afflicted with polio, became too disabled to travel around the country, his wife Eleanor became his eyes and ears, advising him in his role as President, while also taking up social issues of her own. Eleanor Roosevelt was a lifelong advocate of equal rights, and used her position as First Lady to further that idea. However, she was always faced with some opposition along the way. When she received a letter from a white American woman expressing concern about sharing public restrooms with African Americans, she responded with the four basic rights she believes every American should have. Her tone, as well as her very logical argument helped her to be quite persuasive.

Throughout her letter to Miss Frizielle, the woman who had expressed her concerns about desegregation, Eleanor Roosevelt holds a polite, yet matter-of-fact tone. She uses rather brief sentences with minimal artistic additions, all ending in periods. This contributes to the creation of her matter-of-fact tone, as can be seen to be established in the first paragraph: “I have not advocated social equality between colored and white people. That is a personal thing which nobody can advocate.” She is short and to the point, but never strays into disrespect. She evenly counters Miss Frizielle’s argument throughout, but does not attack the woman for her beliefs. In fact, as shown in the first paragraph, she expresses that one cannot force another to change his or her beliefs, and would never advocate for such a thing.

Additionally, Eleanor Roosevelt bases her argument strongly on logic. Though she has no facts to prove her point, she uses inductive reasoning to reach her conclusion. “I am sure it is true that here in Washington you have found some discourteous colored people,” she writes. “I have found colored people who were discourteous, and I have also found white people who were discourteous.” She aims for Miss Frizielle to see that if there are some discourteous white people and there are some discourteous colored people, it is fair to say that skin color is not a good indicator of one’s personality, thus invalidating that part of Miss Frizielle’s argument. She makes a similar inductive argument at the end: “If you have to use the same toilets and wash basins where you work, then all of you must have to take physical examinations.” She is thus saying that if your restrooms are desegregated, you must also have equal health requirements, and therefore you are not any less safe than if you shared your restrooms with only other white women. 

Eleanor Roosevelt’s use of a polite, but even tone, as well as a logical argument, helps her to effectively convey her message to Miss Frizielle.

http://ap.gilderlehrman.org/resources/eleanor-roosevelt%25E2%2580%2599s-four-basic-rights-1944?period=7

TOW #24: Let's Pretend This Never Happened (IRB #3, Part 2)

Let’s Pretend This Never Happened is a “mostly true” memoir by Jenny Lawson, which presents her life as a series of humorous, albeit disturbing stories. Her funny stories are designed to help her reader realize that “... you are defined not by life’s imperfect moments, but by your reaction to them” (Dedication). 

Having finished the book, I can now examine her rhetorical strategies on a large scale. One of the most important things Lawson does is arrange her book chronologically. Lawson begins at the beginning of her life and works through her years growing up, and then her years as an adult. While this might sound rather basic, it is crucial to her work due to the fact that Lawson clearly (as discussed in the previous blog post) wants her audience to feel a connection to her as a person. Thus, as Lawson shares the funny, happy, and devastating moments of her life from as far back as she can remember, it is as if Lawson’s story becomes part of the reader’s story, as a close family friend, or even as a family member. Therefore, when she later references earlier times, the reader can think humorously to him or herself “I remember when Jenny did that!” just as two friends recounting tales from childhood would do. This closeness between author and audience is key to Lawson’s achievement of her goal to embrace the imperfections of life, because Lawson is a clear example of someone who has, and who is, to the reader, very likeable. 

Another overarching strategy used by Lawson is to creatively name her titles. Again, while a seemingly basic strategy, it is very effective. Though Lawson’s stories were interesting, after a few, interest might drop off. The cleverly named chapters were a constant motivation to keep reading, as they piqued curiosity. Titles like “Thanks for the Zombies, Jesus” and “Honestly, I Don’t Even Know Where I Got That Machete: A Comic Tragedy in Three Parts Days” make the reader confused enough to want to know what Jesus has to do with Zombies, and why Jenny (I feel like I can use her first name after reading this book, which means she reached her goal) has a machete! Without readers interested enough to keep consistently reading, Jenny Lawson could never attain her goal. However, with the strategies she used, I remained interested and believe that she did indeed achieve her goal.

TOW #23: Eddie Rickenbacker on Raoul Lufbery's Death (Written Text)

Raoul Lufbery is recognized as a French and as an American ace in the First World War for his 17 confirmed combat victories (and supposed numerous others). He served in an American volunteer unit to aid France before America officially entered the war called the Lafayette Escadrille. When America did enter the war in 1917, he remained as an instructor for new American pilots, one of whom was Eddie Rickenbacker. Lufbery’s plane was shot down in May of 1918 and he apparently jumped from the cockpit, after which he fell some 200 feet and landed on a garden picket, which was ultimately the cause of his death. Rickenbacker, later an ace himself, describes first hand the death of his instructor in his book of memoirs, The Flying Circus, which was intended to be read by the American public.

Rickenbacker arranges his memoir in a manner that mimics a flow of thoughts when one is telling a story. Rather than just describing the event, he explains how Lufbery’s last flight began, then adds in a bit about Lufbery, as if realizing as an afterthought that his audience might not be entirely sure who the man is, then he proceeds to describe the fateful moment, and follows that with a flashback to a few days before the event. This format, though not chronologically organized, gives the reader the impression that Rickenbacker was truly affected by the death of his instructor. It also gives the piece a much more natural feel, so that it seems as though it was spoken directly to the reader, not written with many revisions. This is likely important to Rickenbacker, as he was well-known amongst the American public, and probably wanted to maintain his image as a common American hero, not to distance himself by sounding too formal for the people.

Additionally, Rickenbacker refers to Lufbery by his nickname, “Luf.” This informal attitude towards the major builds his credibility as someone close to the man. As a friend and apparent eyewitness, the public is much more likely to accept his version of the story, though the truth is largely debated. It is interesting that Rickenbacker chooses to tell the version of the story that Lufbery’s plane burst into flames and he leapt to “certain death rather than endure the slow torture of burning to a crisp.” In fact, there has never been evidence to prove that Lufbery’s plane was aflame, and eyewitnesses much closer to the event did not describe the plane as being on fire. It is much more likely that Lufbery was standing to fix his jammed Lewis machine gun and was thrown from the plane when it flipped. Rickenbacker seems to be paying one last tribute to his mentor by telling America that Lufbery’s jump was a “hopeless but a heroic attempt to preserve his life for his country!” Given his own popularity and the perpetuation of this story of Lufbery’s death, such as in Jeff Shaara’s To the Last Man, shows that he was largely successful.

TOW #22: Information Wanted (Visual Text)

On June 4, 1898, about a month after Commodore Dewey’s stunning victory at Manila on May 1, a cartoon was published in Judge, an American satirical magazine. The cartoon depicts a rather shocked-looking Uncle Sam holding a dark-skinned baby, wearing what appears to be traditional native clothing. The cartoonist aims to show the bewilderment of America at the imperialistic position it got itself in due to the Spanish-American War.

Attached to the crying baby is a tag that says “Philippines with compliments of Dewey.” This implies that the Philippines was a territorial acquisition, a gift to America by a very capable commodore, not a land with its own people that ought to have independence. In the cartoon, Uncle Sam looks quite confused, likely because America went into the Spanish-American War with the intention of liberating Cuba from oppressive Spanish rule, but quickly became an imperialistic power of the same nature as the hated Spain. At the very bottom of the cartoon is written: “INFORMATION WANTED. Uncle Sam - ‘Now that I’ve got it, what am I going to do with it?’” The comment further supports the idea that America was unsure of its new position. America, a nation which had rejected colonization at its origin, was ending the nineteenth century a colonizing nation itself.

The cartoon is set up so that Uncle Sam and the baby are in the forefront. The depiction of America as the strong, old, white man, and the Philippines as a screaming baby of a darker skin tone, depicts America’s perceived relationship to the Filipinos - one of superiority. Surely one could argue that America was depicted as a man and the Philippines as a small child just to show the comparative strength of each on the world scale, but ultimately the baby is still crying, making it appear not only of weaker physical strength, but also of a weaker mental strength. The traditional garb appearing on the crying baby makes it seem as though the indigenous culture is inferior to the white man’s culture. Even though the cartoon is meant to be mocking to American government to some degree, it still highlights the perceived superiority of the white man.

Finally, in the background there are ships. I cannot tell for sure whether they are supposed to be Dewey’s recently victorious forces, or the German and other European navies that crept into the Manila harbor waiting to see if America would leave so that they might fill the power vacuum left by Spain. The fact that they are in the back and that Uncle Sam is facing away from them makes them appear as yet another problem brewing on the horizon, which, when Uncle Sam notices them, will direct his decision as to what is to be done with the Filipino baby. That is, they will affect America’s decision to grant the Philippines independence or to remain in control of them.

TOW #21: The American Boy (Written Text)

In May of 1900, before taking becoming the United States’ president, Teddy Roosevelt wrote an essay in a popular youth periodical, St. Nicholas Magazine For Young Folks. His “American Boy” was one in a series of essays on boyhood, and Roosevelt wrote to inspire each young boy to develop into a “good American man.”

Roosevelt repeatedly juxtaposes opposites in his writing, beginning with the first line: “Of course, what we have a right to expect of the American boy is that he shall turn out to be a good American man.” In this case, boy and man are the figures he is contrasting. He follows this with a series of sentences that make similar juxtapositions, like “he won’t be much of a man unless he is a good deal of a boy,” or “coward” and “weakling” versus “work hard and play hard.” Ultimately, the repeated contrast of opposites is meant to highlight the importance of boyhood to the development of a good man. In the first few paragraphs Roosevelt makes clear that this is his position, but does not give much evidence to back it up. He instead relies on the audience accepting what he says as truth. The juxtaposition has much to do with why Roosevelt’s stance is so easily acceptable. When opposites are proposed, one sees two distinct options, one of which often is more preferable, and the audience can clearly follow the logic of the preferable options to the author’s intended conclusion. For Roosevelt, that is the characteristics of a good boy from which a good man can develop.

Another interesting tactic Roosevelt employs is appeal to the lower class. He writes: “Of course boys who live under such fortunate conditions that they have to do either a good deal of outdoor work or a good deal of what might be called natural outdoor play do not need this athletic development.” He is not-so-subtly stating that the lower class laborers have an advantage over the upper class in becoming real men. This is a unique approach, and to some degree an accurate one, if the characteristics of a man really are the ones he defined. However, I wonder about the effectiveness of his strategy, because while most American boys would fit the description he is giving, would most of the audience of a magazine be poor or wealthy?