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. 

Tow #25- New York Times Article/ "Is It Now A Crime to Be Poor?"/ Barbara Ehrenreich

Reading Goal: Correctly identify the author's purpose 

Writing Goal: Use and cite direct quotes; don't just paraphrase

Societies all over the world experience conflicts related with poverty and the gap between rich and poor. The poor are notoriously associated with crime and danger, leading to societies that have no trust for those below the poverty line and no desire to help them. Author and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, through the use of irony and exemplification, argues that this mindset about the poor is misguided and a result of stereotyping.

Ehrenreich's article relies heavily on examples to show that treatment of the poor and blame for illegal behavior is wrong in many of America's cities. She first starts with the results of a recent study that investigates the "criminalization of poverty" (Ehrenreich), where the impoverished are blamed for crimes or are put in poverty because of common stereotypes and guilty looking behavior. When, for example, someone on the brink of poverty is fined for littering or illegally crossing the street and can't pay, they could end up homeless or in prison for not paying their bills or their fine. This is often even more true for African American and Hispanic citizens, who have to deal with racial stereotypes as well, not just being blamed for suspicious actions. The author also uses the example of Al Szekely, an elderly man in a wheelchair from Washington D.C. Though he is an innocent, polite man and a minister, he was put in prison and forced to leave the homeless shelter he lives in "for not appearing in court to face a charge of 'criminal trespassing'" (Ehrenreich). He received this charge because he was found sleeping on a sidewalk of the city, which is illegal for all U.S. citizens, homeless or otherwise. Ehrenreich uses other examples as well to make the point that the treatment of people in poverty is unfair and that these people have a disadvantage when it comes to this treatment or the laws they must follow.

Irony is another tool Ehrenreich uses often to make her argument. By way of many of her examples, she examines cases where people in poverty where unfairly arrested, fined, or imprisoned and became impoverished as a result of this treatment/circumstance. The act of imprisoning criminals and upholding the law is supposed to prevent crime and help, much less get in the way of, poverty. Instead, there are many situations where "upholding the law" (Ehrenreich) has created poverty. Also, Ehrenreich comments on how law enforcers frequently find the impoverished or poor at fault and blame them for illegal behavior because they can almost always profile a person as a "potential suspect" if that person is just "strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood" (Ehrenreich). Through the use of irony and sarcasm in statements like the one above, the author is questioning how fining and imprisoning the poor is of any benefit. They cannot pay the fines, and they take up unnecessary space in prisons if they are there for simple reasons like loitering or laying on the street. The poor are stereotyped and blamed when, Ehrenreich argues, "we can't afford to help the poor", or "go on tormenting them" (Ehrenreich).

Author Barbara Ehrenreich uses examples and irony to make a point about America's treatment of the impoverished: that it is unfair and doesn't accomplish anything. She challenges the common stereotypes about the poor and those in poverty and claims that law enforcement is too quick to blame these people for illegal actions, crime and general suspicious activity. Overall, Ehrenreich questions whether people take the easy way out by blaming the impoverished and also questions why many seem to think it  now a "crime to be poor" (Ehrenreich).

Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

IRB #4 Introduction Post

Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife

By Mary Roach 

Spook is all about the scientific evidence that both supports and debunks ideas on the "afterlife". It focuses on finding factual explanations for the beliefs of many cultures and religions, using the studies of certified scientists, historians, and other experts on the subject. The author, Mary Roach, wrote the book because she was curious about what happens after people die, and decided to collect information both for against the argument that some sort of afterlife exists. The book is supposed to be informative, cultural, and funny. 

I chose this book because science has never been one of my favorite topics, and I was trying to branch out from what I normal read/have read for my other IRBs, subject-wise. So far, I've read a book on Native American history, a memoir about food (cheese), and a psychological, somewhat "self-help" book by Malcolm Gladwell. Reading something comparing religion and science seemed a good choice and more challenging topic since, at least to me, it enters official "non-fiction territory". Also, religion is very important to me on a day-to-day basis. I'm an active member at my church, so I've considered a lot of the questions the author appears to think about and argue about. I'm hoping that this book rounds out the information I've learned from reading IRBs this year and is as good as its reviews. 

Tow #24- Slate Magazine Article/ "In the Name of Love"/ Miya Tokumitsu

Reading Goal: Identify the type of writing as well as strategies used.
Writing Goal: Write a well-developed TOW essay, but keep it more concise than recent TOWs.

The statement, "Do what you love, love what you do" is a common American saying, so common that it inspires many to go off and live their dreams, including college students with no idea of their future career. Some criticize this statement because it is based on personal preference, and not economic, political, or social benefit. Some say that this philosophy only really works out for the rich, educated, privileged American, and not the majority of the population. Whether  it works or not, Ph.D. and author Miya Tokumitsu argues through exemplification and counter-argument that people should consider the economic, political, and/or social consequences that could arise from working because of the passion they have for that job or art.

Tokumitsu is very thorough when refuting others' claims about "Doing what you love..." (DWYL) to make her own points about the hazards of DWYL. She starts her article with some history on the statement and the application it had in Steve Jobs' life. The example she makes of him, a successful man who did what he loved passionately and benefited from it by convincing others to work for him doing the same thing, seems to counter her own claims at first, but actually makes her argument stronger. Jobs' is a prime example that the DWYL philosophy is somewhat "self-centered" and works best for people who have the means to be successful if it doesn't work out, and using someone so widely known as a counter-argument creates both appeals to logos and pathos in a way that helps readers understand her interesting perspective. She also dives into the weaknesses of the DWYL philosophy in detail with more examples. Perhaps going from personal experience, she explains how many academic minds, such as Ph.D.s, and artists of different sorts are resigned to low incomes due to the idea that they are "doing what they love". DWYL can be used as an excuse for poor salary, poor recognition, and other consequences of certain jobs. Tokumitsu claims that the worst jobs are either jobs no one wants, or jobs with lots of passion, and provides quotes from many sources. Overall, she paints the DWYL philosophy in a bad light and backs up this claim with connectable examples readers will understand.

Author Miya Tokumitsu uses counter-arguments and examples to debate that "doing what you love" is not beneficial in today's society. She thinks that it can be used as an excuse and self-centered inspiration for a job. But though a job is important to others, is it really the work THEY will have to do for the rest of their careers?

Tokumitsu, Miya. "Stop Saying “Do What You Love, Love What You Do.” It Devalues Actual Work." Slate Magazine. Jacobin Magazine, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Tow #23 (Visual Text)- World Vision Advertisement/ "30 Hour Famine"/ World Vision 30 Hour Famine Pamphlet

Viewing Goal: Identify importance of images, not just text in image.
Writing Goal: Analyze advertisement in depth like a written text and understand audience's perspective.

Most American teenagers don't experience what it means to be really hungry- to go without food for more than a few hours, to not have food to eat for days. Unfortunately, around 8,000 kids die worldwide every day from malnutrition. World Vision, a Christian mission organization, works to support the families of these children and provide food to families below the poverty line, often in South America, Africa, and Southeastern Asia. Their ad uses appeals to pathos and rhyming to convince it's viewers to raise money as a part of 30 Hour Famine and experience hunger for 30 Hours.

Much of World Vision's ad appeals to it's viewers emotions and feelings on hunger. Everybody hates to be hungry, and most people would not wish that feeling on anybody. When they look at the children in the advertisement, they see skinny, starving children who are just happy to have a bowl of rice to eat. They also most likely notice that there is a single bowl for both of them, and because it looks like a meager amount, their hearts are opened to the problem of malnutrition. Most people feel empathy toward the children and want to gve them more- they would not want their children, siblings, friends or anyone else they know to rely on sharing one bowl if rice as their meal, maybe even meal for the whole day. The text at the bottom if the ad, which says "Release the feast", sticks in people's brains because it rhymes and  also signifies that, for these children, that bowl of rice is a feast. It plays into the emotions the audience felt earlier wen looking at the children, making them consider how important food is to the kids and to everyone worldwide.

When most people see a picture of a starving child, they feel sad, empathetic, and want to make a difference. World Vision uses appeals to pathos and rhyming in its ad to catch its viewers' attentions and make them think about being part of a 30 Hour Famine Event/ make them want to donate money. Nobody want to be hungry, and through World Vision, people can help feed hungry children like they would want to be fed- they help children to receive more than just one pitiful bowl of rice, and hopefully change their lives for the better.