Making Reading Difficult

In Jonah Lehrer's article "The Future of Reading," he combines the persuasive use of relating to the reader with the rational style of a scientific paper. This combination creates an effective argument that both emotionally and logically appeals to the reader. Lehrer utilizes what Alan Gross describes as Baconian Induction when formulating his argument. By organizing his paper in this way, he creates an argument that is clear, concise, and appealing to an intellectual audience.

Lehrer begins his article by addressing his personal experience with both printed and non-printed books, and how he views our society's ongoing divergence from printed literature. He then reinforces his beliefs about the need for complexity of reading through the use of a scientist's study of the electrical impulses in the brain while reading. Because of this, it is apparent that deep thinking is imperative for a person to truly comprehend and appreciate a piece of writing. This concrete, factual introduction to Lehrer's argument validates his claim while simultaneously causing the reader to utilize the method of reading he is describing, as the scientific explanation itself requires deep reading.

He then brings in Francis Bacon's concept of an ascending and descending ladder. As Gross describes it, it acts two-fold, "ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments." Lehrer uses this concept throughout his article as he builds his claim that while the availability of virtual texts is positive, the resulting decrease in comprehension and deep thinking of the material creates a situation in which the reader will understand a sentence one second and forget it entirely in the next. He proposes that the clarity of the screen and simplicity of the language being used is lowering the challenge that comes from pushing through "complex clauses and smudged ink."

Lehrer concludes his paper by then suggesting an experiment for his own readers. He suggests to them that in order to reconcile online reading with the intellectual drawbacks, they must find ways to make the reading difficult again for the audience. He suggests changing fonts, colors, etc. to bring back the challenge of reading. As he says, "our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously." This ties together his argument while at the same time representing the descending ladder by proposing yet another experiment to further his conclusions.

It is at this point, however, that I feel the need to point out some ironic discrepancies existing in Lehrer's article. To begin with, he has published his article online in a very clear and simple manner, making the reading fast and unconscious (with the exception of the description of the neural impulses of the brain, which take a bit more comprehension). The article does not utilize vocabulary that is altogether challenging to understand or develop complex sentences that require any hesitation at all by the reader. On top of that, he does not follow his own advice at the end of the article. His presentation is very easy to read; the font is clear, the colors simply black and white, and he has done nothing to change the contrast of the screen as he suggests to his readers. So I now leave my own readers with this question:

If it is so important for these changes to be made in order to stimulate what Lehrer calls, "e-readers" into a deeper understanding of the text, then why does he not implement these suggestions as an example?

Also, as I have just demonstrated Lehrer's suggestion of changing the colors of my own blog to make your eyes strain, has his idea proven to be effective? Was the struggle to read my article helpful in slowing you down and focusing on the message? Or has it simply given you a headache a made you angry at me for making my page look so awfully annoying?

The Power of Reality

In the Project for the New American Century, the Letter to President Clinton on Iraq is a frightfully chilling document for any American today. This letter, written in 1998, is an urgent plea from eighteen men and women to President Clinton to change foreign policy with regards to Iraq. The information and argument presented in this letter is so disturbing because only three years after it was written the terrifying future that these authors predicted came true. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and what was intended to be the White House were targeted and attacked by Al-Qaida suicide bombers, and it has been debated for the past nine years as to whether or not the Iraqi government was aware of the plot. I do not intend to give my own opinion as to the culpability of Saddam Hussein's regime, however, the authors of this letter have created a shockingly powerful and compelling argument, specifically in retrospect of the September 11th attacks.

According to James Kinneavy, the persuasive power of this letter comes from more than just the words or tone the authors used. The intention, or aim, of the argument requires an understanding of the purposed effect that the writing has on the intended audience. In this case, this letter is intended to be read by President Clinton, so the persuasive power is one of a political call to action. However, since the letter has been published for the public viewing since its release, the new power it possesses over the reader, rather than a logical political agenda, is one of emotion and sadness because of the tragic attack on this nation. This shows how the writer's words and intentions can be perceived differently depending on the reader's current reality, a point Kinneavy claims is essential to any persuasive act.

For most Americans (those old enough to remember the attacks), that reality is both painful and confusing. To this day, it has never been made clear to the public whether or not Saddam Hussein's Iraq funded Al-Qaida, or even if they had any knowledge of the attacks whatsoever. Because of this mystery, the letter has a much stronger argument when the authors say, "the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." The world we currently live in is viewing firsthand the truth of this statement. In as little time as a few days after the 9/11 attacks Americans already saw how drastically airports began changing the procedures of their security checkpoints. When the authors of this letter were able to predict in 1998 that the United States could, "soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War," the reader is inevitably required to ask him/herself how the bombings on September 11th happened when three years prior to the attack the President was clearly aware of that possibility.

Based on the persuasive components to a piece of writing, according to Kinneavy, this letter has a powerful persuasive influence over the reader. Kinneavy emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the author (or as he calls it, encoder), the words (s)he uses, and the current reality of the reader (decoder). In the case of this letter, this relationship differs greatly because of the current reality of our world. If this letter had been read by a viewer (other than the President, the intended viewer) in 1998, they probably would have been considerably less affected by the authors' words. The current context of the letter, however, speaks volumes to the reader, because it means that people saw that the United States was greatly threatened and that no steps were taken to prevent any potential attacks. This jarring news brings new sentiment to the argument and stimulates wonder about the surprise of the bombings. Because of this new reference point, the persuasive power of the letter is of a very dynamic and continually evolving nature, and proves Kinneavy's point that the piece itself is only as persuasive as the reality it exists in.

An Emotional Appeal for a World Community

In Studs Terkel's NPR interview titled "Community in Action," Terkel tells of a childhood event that radically shaped his opinions of mankind. Terkel remembers an emotional scene in which a community of people banded together during the Great Depression to take care of one another and survive. This heartwarming story acts as a genuine emotional appeal to the audience to treat others as, in his words, "a community in action." Terkel argues that it is through community and togetherness that people achieve greatness. He effectively argues this through the use of ethos and pathos, which use the author's trustworthiness and the community's values to persuade the audience.

The interview of Terkel first establishes his intellectual credibility by accounting some background information to the listener. Studs Terkel is a Pulitzer Prize winner who spent most of his career studying the lives of others. His many life experiences give him a very sensible opinion of how people should react to one another. Moreover, his old age (93 at the time of the interview) gives him an air of wisdom and dependability. He speaks in a strong, genuine tone that compels the audience to take his word as honest truth.

The real heart and soul of this interview, however, is within the actual story of a neighbor being evicted from their home during the Depression. The people of the community encircled the family in love and moved them back into their old house, turning back on the utilities. This togetherness exemplifies his belief that, "it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does, no matter how strong he may be." This sense of a natural human connection is what Terkel says encourages us to achieve our greatest successes and, as the story proves, holds us up when we face our greatest struggles. This is the most compelling part of his argument because it appeals to the audience's morality in an incredibly memorable way.

Studs Terkel's interview effectively uses what Jack Seltzer describes as epideictic rhetoric, which is most often used to "create and reinforce community values." Terkel quite obviously appeals to community values -- he urges the world to care for one another and develop a certain feeling of brotherhood for one another. His belief in a "community in action" spurs the audience to reach out to their own community and be unafraid of taking care of other people. His world community dream is one of compassion, empathy, charity, and above all else it is one of love.