TOW #3- WWF Stop Climate Change Ad

An ad for WWF's campaign to end climate change

At a quick glance, this photograph seems to be a simple portrait of a man.  Then as your brain realizes that this is no ordinary man, the image is astoundingly frightening.  Scanning around the image for some sort of explanation, the caption "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT CHANGES YOU" jumps out and clarifies that this is indeed a photograph of a man with a fish head as his own.

 Why does the World Wildlife Fund want to scare their audience? Why did they exaggerate the event of climate change so drastically?  Why can't they just tell us to stop climate change without this sickening image?  The World Wildlife Fund uses didactic coherence, fearsome hyperboles, and a distinct use of contrast in coloring in their ad against climate change to overall startle their audience into being persuaded to end climate change.  The fish head looks very well a part of the man's body, making the picture more coherent and believable for the audience. This picture is designed to persuade anyone on this planet to stop climate change as WWF is a global organization designed to help the entire Earth.  By showing the human as a man, the entire world can relate to the image.  By using a black background and shadowy colors on the man's body, the lightened fish head stands out among the rest of the advertisement.  The bold, white, capitalized letters also contrast against the dark background to make it noticeable to the viewers, as it is the explanation for the image above it that helps the audience understand the entire purpose of the ad.  As the audience can understand that a human with a fish head is nearly impossible, the artist wanted to show how extreme climate change is and how much of an affect it can have on humans.  Although the audience may know that this would  be impossible, the inevitable fear in the back of their minds contains a bit of curiosity that could lead them to think that maybe this could happen to them.  The WWF does an excellent job of putting this little bit of fear into their audience and definitely made myself do a double-take and truly think about the effects of climate change on our world.

TOW #2- Study Finds Movie Attendance Declining As More Americans Act Out Films At Home

While scrolling through the number of humorous headlines on The Onion, one can come across on the extremely well-written article, titled "Study Finds Movie Attendance Declining As More Americans Act Out Films At Home".  Although the article does not have a specific author, The Onion is known for its satire and comedic relief on everyday issues.  While the decline in movie attendance is a true problem, the audience can clearly understand that Americans do not act out films at home instead, because they are movie-watching Americans themselves.  This article uses humor to entertain its readers while also presenting an actual problem in the most recent American culture.

In the middle of the article, the author uses examples of logos and ethos to add humor and emphasis on the problem at hand. They write, "In a survey conducted by entertainment industry analytics firm Rentrak... attending the Pixar hit Inside Out in theaters could reach $50, compared to the $12.95 it would cost to run off four copies of the script..." The beginning part of this statement is completely true, but everything after "compared to" is the author's way of adding irony.  The audience understands that going to the movies is expensive, and that there are more affordable ways to watch a movie, but acting out a movie with only scripts sounds ridiculous.  While adding logos by citing "entertainment industry analytics" there is more humor added, because the author is acting as if acting out movies at home is the actual cause of declined movie attendance.  The simple thought that people would be acting out movies at home instead is humorous to the audience.

By the end of the article, the reader has been hit with so many examples that they can start to think about the actual cause of people staying away from movie theaters.  Whenever the author mentions acting out at home, it could easily be replaced with streaming movies from online.  The Onion does an excellent job of reiterating a common topic of conversation in American culture, while also entertaining their readers with humor and sarcasm.


Click here for Article

IRB Intro Post #1

The Professor and the Madman 

A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the making of The Oxford English Dictionary

by Simon Winchester

This novel that I chose to read for my first Independent Reading Book was recommended to me by Ms. Pronko.  Simon Winchester is a British author that studied at the University of Oxford and has long been writing for The Guardian.  His novel is a historical fiction book based on the creation of The Oxford English Dictionary.  The preface starts off giving the definition of "murder", therefore, setting the mood to a feeling one would associate with death.  James Murray, the editor of The Oxford English Dictionary is traveling to meet Dr. W. C. Minor, someone that had contributed greatly to the creation of the dictionary.  Murray finds Minor at an asylum, surprisingly as a patient.  This book is bound to be filled with mystery and suspense.

TOW #1 - America is Great by Roger Cohen

In the article, "America is Great", Roger Cohen uses the current United States presidential race to examine what it mean for a country to be great.  Cohen tries to convince his audience of American citizens to not vote for Trump throughout all of his writing.  By setting up circumstances when a European nation would use the presidential slogan, "Make (country) Great Again", he explains how European countries are past their stage of greatness.  He says that when the countries reached their maximum point of greatness, their country went to war and lost thousands of lives.  Cohen also uses sarcasm to show that becoming a "great" country again would be impossible.  Near the middle of The New York Times article, Cohen writes, "Or how about, 'Let's Make Italy Great Again!'... Italian interest in greatness is about as deep as its interest in swapping its cuisine for neighboring Albania's" (Cohen).

By using sarcasm, Cohen engages his audience and puts the situation into perspective.  His use of sarcasm tells the reader that it is easy to make jokes about making a country great again, because it is just that ridiculous.  This makes it even easier for the audience to accept Cohen's claim, that Trump's campaign is not one they should vote for.

The author clearly establishes that he does not believe "great" is a word that can be used to describe a successful, stable nation.  After explaining Europe's situation with greatness, Cohen shows that he believes that America is great, but then goes into details that show America doesn't look great at all.  The ending paragraph of the article explains the entire piece.  He writes, "The most dangerous point...of a nation's power is when the apogee of its greatness is passes but it is not yet resigned to decline. That's where Trump's American is.  Which is really, really great" (Cohen).  Previously in the text, Cohen had associated greatness with failure.  I think that he very clearly makes his point that Trump's campaign will not last, and reaches out to his audience not to take him seriously.