My Weblog

Many people would argue that theatre productions make ridiculous feature films. Though the arguments for both sides include lists of good points, neither side seems ultimately correct. Through the recent years, many films have been made based off of theatre productions, usually of the musical variety. These films give opportunity to those who may not otherwise have a window into the world of fine arts, allowing them to experience a fusion of song, dance and acting otherwise not entirely common in Hollywood.
On the other hand, there is no experience quite like sitting in a theatre and watching a performance unfold before your eyes. It is most certainly a dazzling and unique feeling that washes over an audience member each time they sit in the auditorium. A person can feel all kinds of emotion and is often taken on a roller coaster tour of them throughout the entire production. Each audience member may feel or gather some different from each performance, allowing theatre enjoyment for as long as the person chooses.
In the spirit of the theatre, film makers attempt to capture some of the same essence into their productions. Though film has the ability to rework a scene until it is perfected, the entire cast and crew toils to make a believable transfer from the stage to the screen, even going so far as to sometimes use the original actors and actresses from a Broadway run of a production. This attention to detail allows the audience to be immersed in a world entirely different to that of the theatre, one where brilliant additions of computer graphics and special effects are available to enhance the viewer’s experience of the overall production.
In the end, both theatre and film are slightly different, each is a unique expression of the group of people embodied within, and each is viable in presenting to its audience a world otherwise unknown. Even though there is no way to describe the experience of witnessing a live production on stage, film is a widely more accessible media that helps many to witness the wonder and enjoyment of the stage through the distinctly different experience film offers.

With all the political ads that Americans are bombarded by at this point in a presidential campaign, it takes drastic measures from each candidate to ensure that they capture your attention. Each candidate is different, and therefore each political ad is different as well, tailored to what the candidate wants to emulate. One such example is Mike Huckabee’s series of political ads featuring Chuck Norris. These ads, beginning back in late 2007, clearly appeal to authority in that Chuck Norris has very little authority to be making some of the conclusions that he does.
The ads feature Chuck Norris describing why Mike Huckabee would make the best president of the United States, likening him to Reagan and the elder Bush. Norris, being an actor by trade, and earning much of the money in his later years from the advertisement and sales of fitness equipment, does not seem to have the authority to draw these conclusions. He is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone else in our country, but he insists that he has made a point of backing Huckabee because he feels that he has “the entire package.”
In the end, using a celebrity to appeal to authority or to create a bandwagon effect is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Americans see this tactic in almost every campaign, large or small. Unfortunately, as much as Chuck Norris may appeal to young people as a result of a string of jokes about him that began years ago, and to those who remember his acting career, he has little more credible authority than someone’s grandmother.

Part One:
– — – –

1.) Ethos is the authority appeal. To persuade an audience of your argument, it is important to be researched. This knowledge will help you to sound both credible and confident.
Pathos is the emotional appeal, it lets your audience know that you sympathize with them, allowing you to gain sympathy for your own argument. As with all of the appeals, it can be overdone and cause the audience to lose faith in the argument altogether.
Logos i s the logic appeal. Using research to provide support in the form of examples and explanations is important to help reason with the audience. An argument is much more effect if it does invite the audience to think and possibly challenge what they may already believe.
2.) Some good strategies for appealing to the reader’s trust in authority are to research the topic so that the argument is informed, and for the tone of the argument to be authoritative. It is advantageous for you to get your readers to trust you as an authority because your audience will be more likely to be open minded and accepting of your argument.
3.) Some good strategies for appealing to emotion when you’re formulating a reasonable argument are to prove sympathetic to the audience’s ideas or values so that the audience themselves are more likely to view you as a credible source. For example, if I wanted to raise awareness for the adoption of infants within America, I might present several pictures or cases of infants that were in need of adoption.
4.) It is also important not to overdo your statements or examples that appeal to emotion, as it can be overpowering to the desired topic. As with the example above, presenting too many cases or details of the babies and their adoptions could cause the focus of my topic to be overshadowed, thus rendering it ineffective.
5.) Logos can be used to build a strong argument by providing plenty of strong examples for your topic. It can also build your argument when you explain your examples or terms to that the audience is sure to understand the information. Logos is especially important to building your argument because it provides the audience with a more in depth explanation as to why you think and feel the way you do about your topic.
6.) Ethos, pathos, and logos are not at all separate from each other. They each form an important part of an argument. Without one or the other, these appeals fall short of the presentation needed to persuade the audience to consider and perhaps embrace the point of view you’re offering. If you were to give the same argument about the adoption of infants, but were only to provide facts and emotional testimony, your readers would have no logic or explanation as to why they should take your point of view. Similarly, any two of the appeals could not stand without the remaining.

Part Two:
– — – –

“A Global Epidemic in the Making?” - Howard Markel

In the essay A Global Epidemic in the Making, the reader is quickly provided with a pathos appeal about how epidemics used to be contracted, and easily spread without much hope for cure. The author, Howard Markel, then applies the idea of an epidemic to some of today’s vices, such as alcohol, tobacco, and even links it to obesity. The following paragraphs in the article state examples and explanations in a true logos appeal, giving the reader every reason to see and believe that obesity is a threat for themselves, all the while maintaining some pathos appeal.
Throughout the entire piece, the author maintains an authoritative stance, which is not hard for him as he is a professor at the University of Michigan in the subject in which he is presenting. Each time a term is defined technically, there is a subsequent explanation so that it can be understood by the entire audience. All in all, the author makes good use of the three appeals, putting together a well thought-out argument. The argument is written authoritatively, appeals to your emotions, and is presented with plenty of facts and statistics which are all clearly defined to help you to understand the point of view in which they are written.

Part One:
– — – –
Claim: A claim is a thought or statement that needs evidence or support to make it truth. In an argument, a claim serves as the topic to be supported.
Support: Support is the use of explanations and/or evidence to prove your claim to be true. In using support correctly you should be able to at the very least inform a person or group of persons of your argument if not to persuade them fully.
Evidence: Evidence is the collected information that is compiled into support for your claim in an argument. Evidence can be taken from any number of sources, but should always be as reliable as possible in order to support and prove your argument.
Explanation: An explanation is the interpretation of evidence to either help clarify or narrow the application of evidence for an argument. This is especially important when evidence is broad, or perhaps too technical for the target audience.

Part Two:
– — – –
1.) My immediate response to Crichton’s argument was that I find points in his argument that I both agree and disagree with. Though I find myself to be religious, I think that a lot of Crichton’s examples of religion as a whole are very generalized and not necessarily true. His comparison of fanatical religious beliefs to the current views of environmentalists seem generalized as well, but also fairly accurate. I am almost compelled to agree with his claim, even without hard evidence.
Two portions of the article that stuck out to me most were his claims about the human race and nature. His example of no modernized human being wanting to go out and spend time in absolute nature seems fairly true. Most of us in modern society enjoy instant gratification, and the ability to choose what we want when we want it. These wants would hinder any journey into the jungle of Borneo. The other portion of the article that stood out to me was where he wrote of the false claims that have caused major changes in the greater portions of civilization. Crichton claims that falsehoods about DDT and secondhand smoke have caused us to change laws and regulations, and while he claims to have the evidence to explain, he gives none.
2.) Crichton’s tone is that of disgust, frustration, and at times anger. I think that he himself feels very strongly about the substitution of facts for emotions or beliefs in regards to environmentalism in order for there to be any sort of proper argument and changes to be made to our current way of living. He encourages the reader to feel the same, urging them to embrace this way of thinking in order to produce any real productivity for the cause.
3.) Crichton’s main claim is that environmentalism has been twisted into more of a religious matter than a matter of truth and relevance to people’s lives. He does go on to make supporting claims involving the politicalization of environmentalism, warning against this as well.
4.) Crichton supports his claim with correlations to religious beliefs and the discreditation of some of those beliefs with his own reasoning. His examples range from people groups to personal experiences, each one to prove an exact point. His evidence in some cases proves to be sufficient while in others (as in the case with refusing to cite sources for the claims about DDT and secondhand smoke) fall short. Overall his evidence could lead most to agree with his original claim.
5.) Crichton’s reasoning behind not citing particular sources is because he believes that the overall impact on the audience will be minimal. His further explanation for this is that those who treat environmentalism as a religion would adhere to their own beliefs before taking the sources into consideration. I don’t agree fully with this idea, as I give a bit more credit to persons in the religious community. Not everyone is entirely shut off in their own world of beliefs. Many people are actually very willing to be open to others ideas, though they themselves may not agree or pursue a further interest in them. Either way, he makes a fairly firm argument without the sources, though I believe that it wouldn’t hurt to add more of the fact he claims to be so important to his own argument.
6.) Crichton’s argument is strong enough for his target audience. The article was first published in USA Today, which is not a scientific journal. His arguments may have changed, or been more specific had he been writing to a different audience. His points were fairly well explained in his own words, and in terms that are easy enough for the general population to understand making the overall argument more likely to be accepted by the audience.