Tow #28- Documentary Rhetorical Analysis 1

Viewing Goal: Identify the documentary's purpose 

Writing Goal: Analyze The Queen of Versailles as I would analyze an essay or other visual text

The french king who built the Palace of Versailles, Louis XIV, was known as the "Sun King" and passed on his love of luxury to his grandson, King Louis XVI. Louis XVI and his infamous wife, Marie Antoinette, were believed to only care for themselves and their futures, rather than their people, at the start of the French Revolution. The Queen of Versailles, a documentary by Lauren Greenfield that focuses on the life of billionaire businessman David Siegel, his wife Jackie and their family, is a not so subtle allegory of/allusion to the life and struggles of the French royalty at the time of the American Revolution. She argues that while the Siegel family can be considered "down-to-earth", they live in an excessive way. Greenfield, through an interview-like style and emphasis of the setting of the documentary, exaggerates the spoiled behavior of the characters and unnecessary luxury of their lifestyle to argue that no one is perfect. 

The Queen of Versailles is completely focused on the life of the Siegel family in every way. David Siegel is the CEO, owner and founder of Westgate, a timeshare company with resorts across the United States and the brightest sign on the Las Vegas strip. His wife Jackie is 30 years younger than him and a retired beauty pageant contestant, model, and engineer. Both David and Jackie came from "meager lifestyles" and "never imagined" living where they do now, in a sprawling mansion in Orlando, Florida. The 8 Siegel children are so exposed to their life of luxury, with nannies, exotic pets, and limousines, that the idea of college, flying commercial, and earning a living is foreign to them. Being forced to live "among their means" is a struggle when the 2008 recession hits. But while the Siegels physically appear to be living in an over the top manner, they, their employees, and many of their friends and associates insist that they are "normal" people who "make other peoples' lives better through knowing them". The documentary is humorous, but also very blunt and candid, because the Siegels often don't realize that their actions are ridiculous, or that laying off thousands of employees from their company means they HAVE to sell their 90,000 square foot, $75 million "Versailles". They may be nice people, but they have flaws and appear to be living in a fantasy world, not reality.

The documentary, for the most part, seems very personal. The Siegel family's actions are filmed for 2 years, they are interviewed, and all the while, Greenfield never comments on their lifestyle, actions, or words outside of asking a few questions. The documentary relies on the Siegels, and if it were not for the interesting camera angles used and the fact that the family members and staff look directly at the camera, The Queen of Versailles would be less documentary-like and more like real life. This focus on the Siegels causes viewers to focus nearly all their attention on the family and their lifestyle, despite its exaggerated comparisons to the real Versailles, Louis XVI, and the title's namesake, Marie Antoinette. The family is seen in all its glory and all its struggle, and while it seems luxurious and powerful in the beginning, by the end, viewers are left feeling sorry for the family and exposed to their imperfection.

Setting is also very important to the documentary. The majority of the documentary takes place at the Siegels' home, their partially built place (Versailles), or with David Siegel's son and vice president at the Las Vegas PH Towers resort. Their excessive lifestyle is put into focus and makes the family seem more spoiled than ever, if they can leave their house in such a state of clutter and have things go to waste. The setting also helps viewers to compare the Siegels to everyday American families in both positive and negative ways. Positively, it emphasizes that the Siegels are messy, busy people who also have to worry about money and love their home. Negatively, they seem over-indulged and materialistic, despite David and Jackie's humble backgrounds. The family image as a perfect, American success story is destroyed because of the setting and the things the family says in their interviews.

Much like the luxury of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, David and Jackie Siegel are a family who has achieved success and appear to have let it bring their lifestyle to excess. They are a "normal" American family in some ways, but also exemplify the reality that no one is perfect and excess is not always acceptable. They are rich and famous, but also flawed and struggling to maintain their daily, spoiled routines. The Queen of Versailles is a documentary that causes people to think about "perfection" and success, and assess themselves based on the lifestyle of one big, over-the-top(perhaps exaggerated) family. 

Tow #27- Tow Reflection

Reading Goal: Find similarities between Tows #3, 11, and 19 

Writing Goal: Respond to assignment questions thoroughly 

Overall, throughout the year, I have both extremely disliked and appreciated writing TOWs. They were annoying to write, especially under a deadline, but I found that my essay writing really improved over the year because of writing timed essays and TOWs. From TOW #3 to TOW #11, my writing improved mainly in its organization and planning. While #3 and #11 are both mostly summary and worse than #19, #11 has more analysis and is a better attempt at rhetorical analysis than #3. #19 is the best organization-wise of the three TOWs because it is structured like a mini timed essay, and was one of the first TOWs I wrote that was supposed to model actual analysis writing. It finally occurred to me during the end of the 2nd marking period that TOWs weren't really helping my writing, since I was stuck in a writing rut and my TOWs were not very well-thought out or unique from each other. #19 is also the best of the three because of what it is analyzing. The TOWs I wrote in the beginning of the year are for the most part based on interesting articles, but not rhetorical masterpieces. #3 and #19 are more appropriate for analytic writing than #11, but I still think it's good that I varied the topics I was reading about despite the fact that many times, I was not excited about the article I chose. I think that if I could change anything, I would pick articles, essays, and other writing that is both new and interesting right from the start. I think it is definitely easier to write s better essay about something you understand and can connect to. From the beginning of TOW writing to now, I think I've mastered how to form an essay. I've realized that an essay no longer has to be 5 paragraphs, should have its thesis at the end of the first paragraph, needs strong topic sentences, and doesn't need generalized or quoted hooks and closings. I used to format my essays all in the same general style, and it was decent writing, but it wasn't getting me closer to an 8 and away from a 5. On the other hand, I think that my analysis could always improve. I still have to keep in mind that I must connect my analysis and ideas back to my thesis throughout my paragraphs, and sometimes I don't have enough evidence or reference my thesis only at the beginning and end. My analysis has improved, and I see the flaws, but knowing about the mistakes hasn't made them all disappear; I think that when it comes to improvement, tying my analysis to my thesis is one of my biggest things to work on. The thing I appreciated most about the TOWs was that they taught me to write well no matter what I am writing. It could be a AP essay for points, for the exam, or just for timed practice or a TOW, but it still counts in the long run towards making me a better writer. #11 and #19 resemble essays much more than #3, which seems like a commentary or summary even though the article/essay discussed is of better rhetorical quality than the topic of #11. Writing TOWs helped my writing to become AP quality just as much as the timed essays and other assignments because it made me finally think about the quality of my writing and what I can do to improve it. I learned that I have room to grow as a writer, and that was a good lesson to learn after having theme readers freshman and sophomore years who always gave me strong A grades and no little room to improve. Writing a mini essay and maintaining a blog may have been painful and/or exhausting this year, but it is worth it now that I see how much my writing has grown. 

Tow #26- IRB/ "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife"/ Mary Roach

Reading Goal: Find sub-purposes, within the overall purpose of the book, that Roach accomplishes 

Writing Goal: Analyze rhetorical strategies Roach uses for her overall purpose and sub-purposes

Death is a topic that makes many people uncomfortable, especially when the topic of religion comes up. Our society today is hesitant to believe in "life after death", or any sort of spiritual, supernatural explanation to what happens after we die. Providing evidence that proves and disproves the existence of an afterlife, author Mary Roach uses exemplification and personal diction to entertain and inform her readers. 

The beginning of Spook starts with an aspect of religion many people are familiar with: church, and more directly, the Pope. People all over the world understand the Pope's significance as a religious leader, and even more at least know of the Pope. By using the Pope as a reference and example, readers are able to understand in more detail the afterlife beliefs they already know about or have heard about. Roach then shifts focus to evidence for reincarnation, where a person experiences afterlife on earth, and reaches the best form of afterlife after living many lives and getting rid of bad karma. She delves into researching reincarnation by explaining a trip she took to India to speak with a reincarnation specialist and meet some of his study subjects/clients/patients. the same can be said for her other examples. Since much of Roach's writing is written in a personal, anecdotal way that relies on examples, the book feels very real and makes her evidence seem more credible and informative.

Spook's author also uses personal, very conversational diction to make her nonfiction writing more entertaining. The book reads as if she is explaining the experiences she had while researching afterlives of many cultures, and is not completely serious or stereotypically  boring. Each chapter explores a new topic within researching the afterlife, and though the scientific terms could get confusing, they are well explained and easy to follow. Roach's writing reads like something a real person would say while talking, and not some textbook that a student would study about afterlife theories before an exam. Her diction also builds a sort of pathos that makes readers think about the afterlife personally. Roach teaches, but it doesn't feel that way until after you realize you've learned a bunch of new things about, for example, reincarnation. She builds upon beliefs readers already have or consider, both proving and disproving the afterlife, and doesn't take a particularly religious side despite how awkward writing personally about a controversial topic like religion could become.

Mary Roach, the author of Spook, uses both personal, conversational diction and examples to inform and entertain readers with theories on the afterlife. It is refreshing, and doesn't focus on death, so the book is not uncomfortable.