Dear Future APELC-er...

Dear Future APELC-er,

Congrats for signing up for this course! All lot of your peers probably warned you against taking this class due to its formidable reputation in the past. Fear not. It's really not that bad.

 The truth is the most challenging part about this class for me was taking tests. I've always had a love of writing, which definitely helped me in the course along with my grade, however my test-taking skills were not up to par. The class tests both your ability to analyze a text, whether or not you grasped its purpose, how the author achieved that purpose, etc., and your ability to take what you've learned from other writers and apply it to your own work. There is definitely a learning curve required with this course, but it is almost guaranteed that everyone will improve in some aspect.

I think the best way to get the most out of this course would be to keep an open mind. It's pointless to go into expecting the worst; it will be a challenge, there will be grades that you're not used to getting, and you will have to work hard to get an A or a B. But to me this class was so worth the extra effort: it was truly enjoyable, and my writing and analysis definitely improved over the course of the year.

Work hard but don't stress too much. Mr. Yost will say this a lot over the year so get used to it: it's only school. (I rolled my eyes the first time I heard that, but looking back I appreciate the encouragement so much more. It gave me a new perspective that I never fully understand till now.)

Good luck! You'll be fine!

Liz

TOW 29 - Was He Justified? (The Armstrong Lie)

As much as the easiest solution is to deem Lance Armstrong in the wrong, the circumstances do not allow for such a black-and-white answer. Whether or not Lance Armstrong was justified in using and lying about using performance enhancing drugs remains a controversy today. Arguments vary from each end of the spectrum as in he was completely justified or unjustified in his actions. The most conceivable argument is that Armstrong was justified in his doping, however his extended lie was inappropriate and short-sighted.

Doping was the norm of Armstrong's era. The various testimonies explicitly stated that just about all of the top cyclists were accused of or found guilty of using performance enhancers. In order to not only compete, but also thrive in this line of work at the time most had to use these drugs. Although it may not have been ethical, the audience of this documentary can be sympathetic to Armstrong's position; almost everyone has been in a situation in which one must decide whether a specific circumstance rationalizes breaking the rules. One testimony stated that we could have accepted Armstrong's doping because everyone else had been doing the same, but it was his constant denial that irked the public and the officials.

Armstrong's nagging rebuttals were the most infuriating part of his doping scandal. Numerous first-hand witnesses with obvious credibility snitched on Armstrong, but neither he nor his devoted fans would recognize anything the opposition said. Armstrong avidly protested the accusations and viciously attacked anyone behind them. Armstrong lied and got caught. He has no excuses and no one to blame but himself. If Armstrong had admitted to his drug use early on it is likely that his name would not live in infamy as it does today.

It is easy to reflect on Armstrong's career criticizing his decisions and denouncing his name; however in that moment Armstrong was genuinely terrified for his future and decided to do what he believed was the best of the worst options. As viewers of this documentary and commentators of the world's issues, it is important to remember that we were not in the shoes of this person at that moment. We did not live their moments, so who are we to judge them? If every bad decision were publicized no one would be remembered for his or her good judgement.

TOW 28 - The Armstrong Lie (2013)

The story starts out as a documentary recording the comeback of Lance Armstrong in 2009, but after Armstrong was caught for the doping scandal in 2009 director Alex Gibney demanded an explanation. Opening with Armstrong's interview with Oprah in 2013 in which he admitted to using a variety of banned-substances throughout his career, the movie tracks back into his career. Armstrong was constantly accused of doping, and he fervently denied any association with drugs, viciously attacking any who said otherwise. Armstrong burned bridges with colleagues and alienated himself from thousands who believed his guilt, but his experience with cancer made him a saint: people were willing to look past his supposed misconduct because he was a symbol for overcoming crippling odds. Eventually Armstrong was caught. His reasons for doping were justified. His reason for lying was not.

(http://www.impawards.com/2013/thumbs/sq_armstrong_lie.jpg)

The unique narrative structure of this film allowed Gibney to play off the audience's emotions while impartially narrating Armstrong's complex choices. By opening with the Oprah interview, a traumatic moment for the dedicated fans and even the dogmatic accusers, Gibney is foreshadowing that his movie will be emotionally draining. This movie will holistically look at the facts no matter how upsetting they may be. It goes back to explain the history for anyone unaware of what happened, with occasional recent interviews detailing what really was happening. As the chronology goes on and the story becomes closer to the present, Armstrong isn't necessarily relatable, but it is more understood why he did what he did.

Gibney's use of testimony provides credibility to the why Armstrong was cheating and also adds a feeling of indignation from the viewers that he did it for this long and lied about it. The interviews showed that everyone was doping and the only way to truly compete was to join in. The witnesses also showed that some of these people knew what was happening, spoke out, and Lance shot them down. This use of testimony can be interpreted as a hint at Gibney's feelings of hurt but also his slight empathy towards Armstrong.

Overall this movie demonstrated a specific person's history that was so twisted it highlighted the prevalent infamy in a renowned sport. It also exemplifies that nothing is black and white, judging someone without fully understanding their situation is never an accurate perception.

TOW 27 - Reflection

A lot has happened in the past school year, regarding life both within and outside of school. Within this class specifically I can definitely observe a notable improvement in my writing, outstanding in my TOWs. My early summer TOWs demonstrate my extreme effort to sound sophisticated as if I knew what I was talking about without yet taking the class. As the school year starts the texts take on a more simplistic style; I was trying to make sure I understood the basics of these rhetorical analyses before I went on to more eloquence. Towards the latter part of the year, you can notice more organization and better analysis of texts that demonstrate my growth and understanding of the topic compared to the beginning of the year. I think through this process I have mastered taking a piece of evidence, analyzing the rhetorical device, and then divulging on why that device is effective. There is still much I could do to improve, such as creating an effective hook and then a full-circle ending that expresses the, "So what?". These posts were helpful in the sense that they exposed me to different authors and genres while helping me to improve my analysis; however I feel it was a lengthy process that was never fully addressed in class.

TOW 26 - Gardening for Climate Change (James Barilla)

Goldenrod - a plant Barilla often speaks of
(http://www.gpnc.org/images/jpegs/plants/goldenrod_.jpg)

In every corner of the world, in every moment of history, there has always a divide of between social classes. Social mobility is not available to everyone, but many do have the ability to leave in search of a fresh start – including plants. James Barilla’s opinion editorial provides a crafty commentary on the effects of nonnative species, and although he only strictly comments on the nature of gardening, the reader can speculate from his text that there is deeper meaning. Through his two-part arrangement, shifting tone, and central metaphor Barilla urges the audience to embrace inevitable change of people, environment, and lifestyle.

            Barilla’s argument consists of the extended metaphor and then the ambiguous ending, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions. The beginning creates a situation takes a complex situation and simplifies it to gardening. The audience can understand this issue and is less likely to oppose any controversial statements because it seems to be such a humble subject. Then when Barilla makes a more general statement at the end the audience cannot refute it: since readers can understand his argument earlier, they are less likely to disagree when it is applied to society with the same logic.

            Constantly shifting his tone from objective to troubled, throughout his text Barilla creates different appeals to his audience and different levels of understanding. He presents facts to the audience revealing his credibility and elaborates on the repercussions revealing his humanity. The audience can understand the circumstances and then why they are important to each person.

            Overall the metaphor Barilla uses is extremely powerful in its ability to convey a deeper message. Plants are one of the most complex and revered organisms on this planet as are humans; the comparison between the two shows that if plants must adapt to new situations then it is probable that humans must eventually as well.

            Barilla never directly relates his discussion of plants to the natural state of humans. All he says that creates this relation is, “We need to start thinking not just about what used to be, but what could be.” Barilla is urging us to let go of strict habits and customs, with no room for growth and innovation, and to embrace our future: the uncertain nature of certain change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/gardening-for-climate-change.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

TOW 25 - Walk the Moon performance @ iTunes Festival

Popularity is an abstract concept. Each has his or her own perception of allure and attraction, but what grants someone national appeal? A single person or a group of people is able to gain the love and affection of thousands of people, despite each person having a different perspective on perfection. Musicians are able to pull at the hearts of millions not only across a country but also across the seas. It would be naïve to say their popularity is solely based on their music. It is live performances that create the magnetism of international stardom; it is these that allow small town bands from Ohio to create a far-reaching impact. Walk the Moon’s iTunes Festival performance demonstrates the persuasive forces of appearance, energy, and interaction, the basis of what distinguishes memorable musicians.

            The appearance of Walk the Moon is representative of their music, automatically informing its listeners of its purpose. The painted streaks of purple and white lining each member’s face set the band into a unique genre – automatically the audience realizes the band intends for this concert experience to be a fun one. Paint is associated with creativity and imagination, two qualities that can definitely create a good show.

            A show should be energetic and lively; when a band presents those traits in its performance, it heightens the overall experience. The concerts that feel on the brink, the atmosphere practically ready to burst – those are the shows to remember. Walk the Moon is constantly jumping up and down, dancing around the stage, making a fool of themselves, in order to encourage the audience to do the same. It is essentially this spirit that spreads throughout the audience, and it is that spirit that spreads the audience to an international level.

            When a band interacts with its audience it creates a connection between the two, a feeling that is coveted by most. When Walk the Moon talks to its audience, encourages them to dance, they are creating a more intimate atmosphere; even though the audience consists of thousands of people, the band is interacting to them as a whole. That ability of performance is not only impressive, but also coveted.

            Walk the Moon was not known by many in London until the iTunes festival. They were not known in this area until the Made in America festival of 2013. Performances are what spurred its fame. While in a perfect world it would be the artistry that generated fame; in reality it is the band’s poise and how the portray themselves that does it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oexD-3Lstc

http://irocktheshot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/walk-the-moon-at-firefly-festival-papeo-281.jpg

TOW 24 - Love and Limerence – the Experience of Being in Love (Dorothy Tennov)

Love is never simple. After devouring this scientific marvel of a book, Tennov makes it clear that the popular notions of love tend to be faulty misconceptions. One must consider all of the various types of love, which, after an extensive and lengthy Google search, can be summed up in four general types: affection, friendship, romance, and unconditional. Tennov explores the depth of limerence, a sentiment bordering between infatuation and love but is not necessarily either. Honing in on a controversial theory in the psychological community, Tennov delves into the reality of limerence and its threatening potential using credible consensuses and graphic metaphors.

            Tennov’s work demonstrates that she has the mind of a researcher: whether collecting her own data or generating theses from experts, Tennov strings together a variety of evidence to reach a valid conclusion. The foundation of Tennov’s study began with a compilation of student opinions, all stating very similar experiences in love. After analyzing these and identifying the trends, the conclusion Tennov develops is not only logical for herself, but also to the reader. If all the evidence points to the conclusion Tennov draws, no matter how strange or unaccepted, then it is only sensible to accept her thesis as rational.

            Drawing parallels between complex, experimental concepts and simple, daily-life functions creates a sense of comfort within the reader making the text easier to understand. Toys and games are at the comprehensive level of a toddler. Therefore, when Tennov states “you find yourself a player in a process (love) that bears unquestionable similarity to a game,” the simplicity of one idea transcends to the other” (67). An extremely sophisticated style of writing, the comparisons Tennov uses allows the readers to study complex thoughts on an understandable level. If the simple-minded can accept her thesis as true, then it is at least worth exploring the validity of that theory.

            What are usually just words on paper are transformed into real-life situations through Tennov’s provoking and thoughtful analysis. Skeptics cannot deny that Tennov’s studies and evidence are cogent if not concrete; the ingenuous peoples who are not well-versed in scientific jargon cannot deny that Tennov’s theories make sense. If the two opposite ends of a spectrum, educated versus the… less educated, can accept a theory, everything else should simply fall into place.