Tag: rhetorical analysis

The Deep Space of Digital Reading was written by the renowned essayist and novelist, Paul LaFarge. LaFarge has written many essays over the course of his literary career, and is a contributor to literary magazines such as  The New Yorker and The New Republic. In addition to numerous essays, LaFarge is the author of five novels: The Night Ocean, The Artist of the Missing, Haussmann, or the Distinction, and Luminous Airplanes, and The Facts of Winter (paullafarge.com). LaFarge’s writing style differs from essay to novel, however. In his essays, LaFarge takes on a more scholarly and argumentative tone, drawing from multiple sources in order to back up his claim. By comparison, his novels have a much lighter tone, being fictitious and not drawing from factual evidence.

LaFarge has received critical acclaim for his work, and is the recipient of awards such as the Bard Fiction Prize, and fellowships from New York Foundation for the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts and the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library (paullafarge.com)

This article contains two audiences, the primary and the secondary audience. LaFarge’s essay is largely directed to those who spend a majority of their time reading online, and those who advocate for the benefits of online reading. The title of the article is The Deep Space of Digital Reading, and this article speaks to the positives of reading online, and how “digital reading” isn’t as detrimental to our health and cognition as one would think (LaFarge,The Deep Space of Digital Reading). However, this article seems to speak to a more educated primary audience, as opposed to everybody that reads online, due to the fact that LaFarge references many other scholarly articles and essays within his own, and analyzes the work done by cognitive psychologists.

LaFarge’s secondary audiences are the literary and scientific communities, two scholarly communities who are already educated on the conventions of modern technology. Within the scientific community, there is a huge debate on whether or not the use of modern technology is harming our brains. LaFarge’s essay, backed up with cognitive studies, as well as other scientific evidence, will attract those from the scientific community. This article will likely receive attention from the literary community as well. LaFarge is an active member within the literary community, having published several books, and many more essays. This, in combination with the fact that he is taking a stance on a controversial issue in the modern world, is likely to stir up some attention.

The main claim of LaFarge’s essay is that reading online, “digital reading” is not as bad as the general populous assumes it is, and that readers who don’t like to read online shouldn’t have to worry about leaving traditional reading behind in the new age of technology. The article is largely ambiguous, offering consenting and dissenting opinions on both sides of the debate, but does lean more towards the side of pro-digital reading. The sources that LaFarge uses throughout point towards this, especially in the case of scientific and cognitive evidence. Many times throughout the article, LaFarge states that the brain is not harmed by reading online, and is, in fact, able to rewire itself to accommodate. (LaFarge, The Deep Space of Digital Reading). LaFarge also makes the claim that reading, historically, has always had its issues, and uses historical evidence to support this. He references Socrates, and his 5th century worry over whether or not writing would weaken the brain (LaFarge, The Deep Space of Digital Reading).

Generally, LaFarge seeks to reassure the general populous that reading online is not detrimental to our brain function, and to persuade those that are against online reading to consider the benefits.

Largely, this essay is LaFarge’s personal opinion on digital reading. He first draws his reader in using an example; a historical anecdote. From here, he begins to get into the topic of “digital reading”, and how the rise of technology is challenging our brains (LaFarge, The Deep Space of Digital Reading).  In order to support his claim, online reading isn’t bad, LaFarge draws from many different areas of study, using anecdotal evidence, other essayists’ claims, psychological research, and even historical evidence. His writing is very well researched in this regard. However, the scientific studies he sites are from 2005, a bit outdated for the time that this article was written, in 2016. Still, the studies that he sites may be the most up-to-date or contain the most significant data.

LaFarge’s essay was published in the Nautilus, a scientific journal, in 2016.

The Deep Space of Digital Reading is in the format of an online article. However, LaFarge’s essay differs from traditional online articles, as there are no hyperlinks embedded in the text, and the website it is published on has a dropdown menu, rather than a series of links in the header. This article is written as if it had been published in a newspaper, rather than being published online. With that being said, though, there are clearly digital aspects of the article. Underneath the title is an interface where the reader can comment on the article, or share the article on social media platforms. The Deep Space of Digital Reading also features many stylistic features, such as differing font size and italics, which would not be possible on print. While no hyperlinks are included within the article, The Deep Space of Digital Reading does feature advertisements of other articles in the middle of the page, as well as at the end of the article.

“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” is an article written by Ferris Jabr and shows the relationship between reading on paper versus a computer screen and how they affect things like your memory and comprehension. The article shows that reading on paper is much better in many scenarios because people seem to remember the information more and can understand it better (The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens).

The author of this article is Ferris Jabr who is a writer for The New York Times Magazine and Scientific American. He received a master’s degree in journalism from New York University and a bachelor’s degree in science from Tufts University. Jabr has written a wide variety of articles that span from things like the sciences, nutrition, nature, and technology. For example, some of the articles he has written are called, “How the Brain Ignores Distractions” and “Why Exercise May Be the Best Fix for Depression”. We can tell the credibility of the main article through his credentials, past articles, and the sources.

The audience of this article captures a wide variety of people. This article doesn’t pertain to a certain gender because since this article is about the differences between reading on a screen versus on paper, that means any gender can relate to these topics. The main differences come with age and wealth. If you’re consistently reading both on a screen as well as on paper and is interested in the effects of these actions, then you’re probably in the range of a 16-year-old up to 65-year-old. Kids younger than 16 are not interested in the details of how reading on an iPad affects them. They also are probably only playing mobile games and not actually reading articles or books related to these things. Any older than 65 years old, and you most likely won’t see them reading a lot on electronic devices to where they will be interested in this sort of thing. The audience is also either middle to upper class for them to be able to afford electronic devices like iPads, iPhones, or computers. If you are not reading on these devices, then there is not a reason to be interested in articles about them.

The purpose of this article was to the show the pros and cons of reading on a screen versus reading on paper. The article mostly supports the idea that reading on paper is better because it helps with things like memory and comprehension. A big part of what helps you do this is how you navigate through the text. Since in a book or a paper is a physical thing, this means you have four corners which you can relate the words to and you can write within the margins any notes that could help you. Luckily, most people prefer paper books over electronic ones anyway. Jabr references research for Microsoft and it is stated that “Participants in her studies say that when they really like an electronic book, they go out and get the paper version.” (qtd. in Sellen). This shows that even when they own the electronic version of the book they still believe they don’t own it until it is in paper form. Even though people read a lot on screens and could be affected by the cons of it, when they can read it on paper form they will reap the benefits of doing so.

The context of this article is that it was written on April 11, 2013 and was publish by Scientific American. Scientific American is known to be very credible with many famous people contributing to it including Albert Einstein. Their articles are known to not include bias and cite many other scientific sources as evidence. This allows us to trust in the information in this article and take what they say about reading online as truth. The problem arises when we look at the date that it was published. Since it was published more than 5 years ago, it’s getting to the point where it becomes less credible. This is because much more research could have been conducted on this subject from then up until today. Although it is not too long ago that we should dismiss this article entirely, but there may be more recent articles on this topic that could show updated information that we should look at instead.

The genre of this article, or what form of writing this is in, is that it is a scientific online article. It can be found on any electronic device including computer, iPhones, or iPads. This is interesting because this article focuses on the difference between reading online versus on paper. Since this article is online, we suffer from the same affects such as worse comprehension and memory while reading it like the article points out. The publisher and author should want us to remember and comprehend all the information they put out so when they talk about how when you read online it’s worse for you, things seem to be a little backwards.

True Rhetrorical analysis final

Technology is improving every day. The more advanced it gets; the more humans fear how it will affect themselves and the people around them. Today’s humans invented something called the eBook. This technological device allows readers to read and find various types of books online. eBooks are very convenient and are faster to gain access to. There is no longer a need for people to travel outside of their homes to go to a library if they need a book for any reason. However, problems arise when readers come across ads while reading, which is considered a major distraction, and can leave people deuterated from the purpose of being on that particular site. Nicholas Carr, author of the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” published in July/August 2008 in The Atlantic, Carr argues that technology is hindering our ability to comprehend. He persuades his audience of men and women of the ages thirty through fifty with ethos, and a personal appeal. Nicholas Carr has written for The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Wired, Nature, MIT Technology Review, and many other periodicals. His essays including “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” and “The Great Forgetting,” has been collected in several anthologies, including The Best American Science and Nature Writing, The Best Spiritual Writing, and The Best Technology Writing. In 2015, he received the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity from Media Ecology Association (Nicholas Carr)

In Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” he first uses a personal appeal to describe why he is unfavorable towards online reading. He described himself before online reading “Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words (Is Google Making Us Stupid)”. Now after participating in online reading he says, “Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” (Is Google Making Us Stupid, Carr}. These choice of words shows his purpose of writing the article which is to spread awareness of what online reading is lacking for humans mentally. Once feeling like he was able to dissect the information and connect with the information in front of him it is now as if he can barely skim the surface. Reading online can have a disconnect from the reader to the book. Creating the ability for people to have to work smarter not harder. In the article many people have made a comment saying we would all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. (Is Google Making Us Stupid, Carr)

Carr’s audience is targeted to men and women of the ages thirty through fifty. Generations that are not a part of the digital generation which means the generation of humans whose generational location places their birth and developmental experience during a time of widespread to digital computing (IGI Global, 2016), tend to dislike technology due to the discomfort of unfamiliarity. Humans who are born into the generation are young and are very familiar with how technology operates. Young adults and children would rather hear the good technology has done rather than what it is doing to hinder their learning which will gain confusion as schools began to teaching students using smart devices such as computers.

Being as though people are utilizing technology as much as possible, it has become a way to make technology have super intelligence. This is where humans are relying on computers to know more information when asked. Google has the answer to majority of questions when it is asked along with other people’s opinion. In Mountain View, California, Taylorism; the principles or practice of science is home to Google’s headquarters where executive, Eric Schmidt is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and is striving to “systematic everything” (Is Google Making Us Stupid, Schmidt).

Carr uses ethos to illustrate that technology is hindering our brains by allowing his audience to see a different perspective through some well-known people who also agree with his claim. Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds (Is Google Making Us Stupid, Carr). This makes people who admire Squarciafico keep an open mind to what Carr is trying to persuade to his readers about the effects of the internet. As Carr continues to add people who are credible to this article more people will believe that this article is worth reading.

In conclusion there are many situations to where online reading can be great for its convenience but there are situations where traditional reading is more effective for processing information and truly understanding the meaning of what the reader just read. As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence (Is Google Making Us Stupid, Kubrick Dark). The more the internet grows it gets smarter and humans grow depended on artificial intelligence instead of gaining natural intelligence.

Part 2

For color there is a bright red color which is bolded of the authors name “Nicholas Carr”and the and the the topic which is Technology. The next color is black which is in a large font titled “Is Google Making Us Stupid” I see a lot of ads which through me off track a couple times. Most of the ads are off topic and does not help the author with his claim. There was a picture of a man being stopped by the internet patrol however he has a book in his hand in his hands so I am thinking he is in violation of reading to slow because of how high the speed limit is.

Rhetorical Analysis on “Is Google making us stupid?”

The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is a rather persuasive piece written by Nicholas Carr. It focuses on the praiseworthy aspects and shortcomings of online reading. He discusses how, although online reading presents a gateway for newfound aspects of reading not attainable when reading traditionally, it poses potential crippling of the human mind due to lack of traditional-style reading, and therefore deters effective use of concentration and comprehension. He uses a variety of historical sources from recent past and distant past in his essay in order to fortify his argument, which in turn makes for a credible source for a unique aspect on online reading in a technology-driven age. (Carr, “Is Google Making us Stupid?”). Starting with the author, Nicholas Carr is a writer, who has written quite a few books, articles, essays, and even has a blog, all pertaining to the theme of technology and business. Specifically, he’s written 6 books, all of which are about not only technology, but how it’s evolving and how it will affect future generations, whether it be hindering, or immensely prospering. His first piece, Digital Enterprise: How to Reshape Your Business for a Connected World, was published July 1, 2001. It magnifies the evolution of the wonder that has become the internet and how it is changing the world of business, specifically the strategic side of business. Within the book there is a chapter titled “The future of Commerce” (Carr, “Digital Enterprise”) which goes in depth as to how buying and selling through the internet opens new opportunities for business. Carr’s next published work titled Does IT Matter? is in fact an expansion of his Harvard Business Review article “IT Doesn’t Matter.”. It accentuates the importance of information technology and gives it a bigger role in the world of business. A case in point about Carr’s books and essays is that he often using historical evidence as a foundation for his claims. It’s shown throughout all his books and articles, and he even incorporates it in some of his blog posts. A few published books later, Nicholas Carr released what has come to be his most recent book, Utopia Is Creepy: and Other Provocations. Carr speaks on the greatness of technology and what it has done for us. He talks about the advances that technology has made and how it has impacted both the U.S. and the entire world, however, he also expresses that technology isn’t the 2nd coming for a better and brighter future. Keeping all this in mine, Carr’s take on “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” reflects all of his publishing previous of this essay and following this essay.

When talking about the audience, one may ask, “Who is this for? Who is this made for and tailored towards?” You may start by looking at where this was published. The article was published in 2008 on The Atlantic, a magazine well known across the U.S. Being published both in a magazine and online, there has to be a certain income level required to have the excess funds to either purchase the single magazine, subscribe to the magazine, or have access to the internet. It would be fair, at the least, to insinuate that the income level of this audience is middle to upper classed. Another thing you could view to suggest what audience this is targeted to is the vocabulary used in this essay. Nicholas Carr uses an assortment of vocabulary in his essay, and his vocabulary shows that a certain reading level or level of intelligence is required to not only follow along well, but to extract something and comprehend what’s being said and the point that’s being made in this essay. This presumes that most of Carr’s audience has post-secondary education. With that comes age. Granted, this is an essay that assesses online reading, therefore a generation familiar with reading online compared to traditional reading should be the primary focus audience. Anyone who has any amount of post-secondary education is 19+ years old, therefore a good primary audience would be 19-25 year-old, middle to upper class men and women who have post-secondary education. Now of course a good majority of 19-25 year-olds aren’t middle to upper class men and women. However, the family they associate themselves with are. A good secondary audience could be attained looking at the “The Atlantic” website. In the “sections” tab you see the different sciences that The Atlantic magazine contains. They contain all the different sciences such as social sciences, computer sciences, etc. An accurate secondary audience would be either scientists or researchers.

Taking a look at this essay, Nicholas Carr has clear cut purpose. His purpose is to warn people of the dangers that come with online reading. He diversifies his claim with different types of evidence, which includes historical evidence, research evidence, and even his own experiences with technology and its crippling capabilities. In Carr’s essay he states, “media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (“Is Google Making us Stupid?”). This shows the level of understanding that Carr has of the internet’s powerful influence, however as influential as it may be, the heavy influence is doing more harm than good. A sub argument to Carr’s main claim is that the new way in which information is being delivered is skewing not only the amount we have to process, but how fast we have to process all of it. In the same paragraph as the example previously mentioned, Carr says “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”(“Is Google Making us Stupid?”). This expresses how people often dived deep into readings in the past, but now we skim over the articles we find and rid of them.

It’s worth noting that where this essay was published and when it was published play a big role in the effectiveness of the entire essay. Being posted to The Atlantic is a big deal, being mindful of how popular the magazine is across the U.S., not to mention the credibility and history of Nicholas Carr. Nicholas Carr specifically writing this essay makes for a better argument due to the fact that he’s written a vast combination of books, articles, essays, and blogs specifically about technology before. The year being 2008, it’s the year filled with up and coming waves of new technology that could make the human population go crazy over the ease of mind technology gives us day to day. However, Carr uses his essay to warn people of the potential threats–both physical and mental–that online reading entails.

The medium in which this information is delivered is quite crucial to the message it’s trying to send. It being in both a magazine and online, Nicholas Carr provides multiple ways for his main purpose to be analyzed, therefore reinforcing the theme of his entire essay–online reading vs. traditional reading. He chooses to publish this specifically in a magazine and online, rather than publishing it in a rather diminishing medium of received information such as the newspapers.
Nicholas Carr uses aspects of rhetoric in order to develop an effective and strong argument against online reading. He uses his history as an author, his audience, as well as context, genre and purpose as the driving force behind his essay. Carr also uses a series of historical evidence and research-based evidence to support his claim. A combination of all this contributes to concisely written piece.

Interface Analysis

There are many examples of how reading an article online that is particularly about online reading that can change and affect your view or your experience of the essay. The first of few examples include the hyperlinks. Hyperlinks will take you to another website, usually to get more information on a person, place, or item that was referenced. This changes your experience because now you have more knowledge and it makes it easier to comprehend ideas that might be necessarily easy to follow:

Another thing to look at is font. The rather simplistic format of the website is tailored around their articles being somewhat formal. Color also matters. The predominantly black and white is fairly “plain” or basic:

The last thing to analyze is the website itself. The website has many different categories and an assortment of sciences. This gives people looking for something else on that site a chance to come by this article, or vice versa:

Technology today has become so mainstream that it has replaced almost everything we do with new inventions and innovations to make things easier. The internet is one form of technology that has became apart of our everyday lives and it has changed the way we are. The internet is so versatile and always changing that you will never see everything you can within your lifetime. You can search the web for a story on dogs and end up seeing over millions of different stories on dogs from many different people. Not only does the internet provide a vast amount of information on one topic, the amount of hyperlinks, pop ups, and ads you see while surfing the web makes can make a ten minute search for a story on dogs a 4 hour long YouTube binge watching. When someone searches the internet the amount of gifs, memes, and funny prank videos they see along with the convenience and easy access of it makes them forget about what life was like without the internet and what we used to use when we didn’t have it.

Reading is just one thing that has changed overtime along with the new innovations with technology. Technology has changed how many people read today because years ago when we didn’t have the internet there was only paper items to read. As years have went by and the internet has evolved many people have stopped using paper reading or use them a lot less then before because of how much easier and convenient it is and how it allows you to read so much more on many different topics or by different authors quickly. However, nothing is ever perfect and with every pro there is a con to go with it.

In the article, “Is google making us stupid?” we can see some of the pros and cons that are directly related to using the internet over paper reading (Carr). To understand more about the article written we first look at who Nicholas Carr is as a writer. Carr is an American writer who focuses a lot of his articles and books on technology, culture, and business. He has written for a lot of publishers like The Atlantic, The Wall Street, New York Times, etc. (Carr). His focus on technology and its positive and negative impact on our life is shown in many of his pieces of work including “Is google making us stupid”. In this article he shows us the pros and cons of reading on the internet and gives us his overall experience and opinion with online reading (Carr).

The article was written in August of 2008 which is pretty recent when the internet is now being used all the time now (Carr, Is google making us stupid?). In the 2000s we see a big increase in the amount of technology we use on a daily basis. This article being published around the time of the technology boom makes a lot of sense and many people have started to use the internet more and more during this time and reading online also became more prevalent. Since the article was posted around this time then more people will be able to relate to their experiences with reading online with Carr’s. The article was published on The Atlantic which is a large newspaper establishment and this will allow more people to read his article and get his message out.

The article was also published to an online newspaper article and instead of print. This further goes along with his argument when he argues the pros and cons of reading online vs reading from paper. Reading this article online allows the reader to see exactly what Carr is talking about when he talks about how reading online can be very distracting for a reader when we talks about all of the hyperlinks, pop ups, and ads we see in the article (Carr, Is google making us stupid?).

The purpose of the article was to explain to the reader how using the internet changes the way we are able to read and process the information we are reading (Carr, Is google making us stupid?). Carr talks about how reading on the internet has shown that it has negatively affected how we read because we are not able to read as much and concentrate or comprehend on it due to the fact that the internet and he says “I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory” (Is google making us stupid?). The internet is set up a lot differently than paper reading making is easier to get distracted while reading. Many people also prefer to read things on the internet rather than paper because it is easier and they are able to skim an article and find information easier then reading a whole book (Carr, Is google making us stupid?). In the article Carr tells us that even though the internet does have many cons to it, we shouldn’t stop using it completely but just understand the negatives it may have and find a way to be able to work around them.

Anyone who reads on the internet or with paper can read and take something away from this article. The article directed towards middle age people that have experienced both paper and internet reading at equal amounts. For someone to really understand and relate to Carr’s argument they would have needed to experience both online reading and paper reading to understand the difference between online and paper reading and they can possibly relate to the changes in how they read. Carr also directs the article to people that are growing up with nothing but technology surrounding them. He wants them to see that the just because the internet seems like a easy and great thing to use, everything has its negatives as well as its positives. This allows them to be able to relate the article more to see if they are affected just like the Carr explains in his article about how ready online affects us (Is google making us stupid?)

Link to voiceover video:

https://www.icloud.com/attachment/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcvws.icloud-content.com%2FB%2FAbAd-ZdWnPZ8IOATtMnA6_bPm4jgAX7G3d1o0AAbtBq_vwwPHgaGOu4D%2F%24%7Bf%7D%3Fo%3DAt5owPeEsoJOe5KAulQw0I4eUtxRKGY2xpqTOuHK43uG%26v%3D1%26x%3D3%26a%3DBzUtPhxFTEYD-A7cpI4AiWdXlw7UA6nQRgEACAHIAP9__SyGA-knRg%26e%3D1540760165%26k%3D%24%7Buk%7D%26fl%3D%26r%3D2781983F-FC31-4160-B4B5-0C06BD81D161-1%26ckc%3Dcom.apple.largeattachment%26ckz%3DF564B43C-FBBE-4D9D-ABB4-1FA535A65748%26p%3D30%26s%3DZw23DSoeAzG7VFhMRNTNxk8wYnA&uk=v4mpbKlbfNnxIqFuShmznA&f=ScreenRecording_09-28-2018%2016-44-49.MP4&sz=216068314

Reading on paper and reading on a screen have some key qualities that differ greatly, Farris Jabr along with other contributors show in great detail how the brain reacts to both and why some would say reading on paper is more beneficial.  Ferris Jabr’s article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” talks about something that we might not even realize when reading a simple online text or paperback.  Ferris is a contributing writer to the New York Times and Scientific American along with a handful of others including Wired, Foreign Policy, New scientist, and The Awl.  Ferris has a Masters of Arts in journalism from New York University and a Bachelor’s of Science from Tufts University.  He currently resides in Portland, Oregon.

The audience that Ferris targets is this article is essentially anyone but mostly focused on readers of both paperback and e-readers.  His first example is of a one-year old who when presented with a paper magazine isn’t sure how to turn the pages and treats it like a tablet. This can be explained in the video and short response by her father, Jean- Louis Constanza “A Magazine Is an iPad That Does Not Work” which shows in some cases everything should work the same way as the technology we’ve used. “Magazines are now useless and impossible to understand, for digital natives” (Jean-Louis Constanza) can be seen a possible explanation for why the one-year old was trying to use the magazine as an I-pad but I think she was just being a curious and touching the pages.  Whatever the case, technology has a significant effect on how we learn new things and the experience we take from previous things.

Another focus was on 10th grade students at the University of Stavanger in Norway which showed that students who read the texts on the computers performed a little worse than who read on paper.  They were given one narrative and one expository text with about 1500 words in length and were then required to complete reading comprehension tests with multiple choice and short answer questions.  “The ease with which you can find out the beginning, end and everything in-between and the constant connection to your path, your progress in the text, might be some way of making it less taxing cognitively, so you have more free capacity for comprehension” (F. Jabr) which shows that students who could hold the text in its entirety could quickly and accurately navigate and absorb the information they were looking for, whereas navigating on a screen was much more tedious and showed a disconnection cognitively.

Reading on screens and reading on paper is relevant to anyone that reads and is an important point to make when discussing how technology changes the way we read. When reading on a computer is feels much more intangible than reading a physical book.  The sensory experiences associated with reading are in some cases lost when looking at a screen.  The feel of the pages, the satisfaction of completing a chapter, and visually seeing the progress are just a few of the main advantages in reading a paperback. Remembering contextual details and recalling information are also key when reading a book. “Other researchers have suggested that people comprehend less when they read on a screen because screen-based reading is more physically and mentally taxing than reading on paper” (F. Jabr) this shows that ambient light shining directly into people’s faces can cause eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision making e-reading more taxing in general.

Even though this article was written in late 2013 it still conveys a current and relevant message that shows the unique advantages of reading on paper vs tablets and e-readers.  The Scientific American was a good outlet to discuss this argument because of the like-minded articles that make up the website. This genre of technology mixed in with real life studies and personal contributions was well worth reading and made you think of which one I prefer and how has it has affected me in my daily life. Paper books have a clear advantage over e-readers for being cognitively engaging and tangible as opposed to eye strain and making information harder to distinguish and remember.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v36oibr9ylxs3pd/Article%20Analysis-Is%20Google%20Making%20Us%20Stupid.MP4?dl=0

Nicholas Carr, the author of Is Google Making Us Stupid, is a writer on technology and culture in which his books has been translated into more than twenty-five languages. Carr has written for multiple big-name publishers such as The Atlantic, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Nature, Wired, and MIT Technology Review. Carr has received the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity from the Media Ecology Association in 2015. He has a B.A. from Dartmouth College and an M.A., in English and American Literature and Language from Harvard University. Carr has written many other articles, journal entries, blogs, and posts related to technology and how it plays a roll in how we learn and read. (www.nicholascarr.com/)

When Carr was writing Is Google Making Us Stupid, he was writing towards the people who were raised in the age where almost everyone has a cell phone and information is available at your fingertips. He is also writing towards people who argue that reading online and the Internet is either helping us learn, read, and write better or it is making it worse on us as a generation. Not everyone who Carr considers his audience may agree with his argument which he backs up with evidence and main points that all his audience may adhere to.

Carr’s purpose in writing this text is to make the claim that the reason for the downfall for the concentration factor and having the feeling the brain is changing in a way is due to the Internet. He also claims that “The Web has been a godsend” to him as a writer. Carr talks about how his mind isn’t going bad but rather feels as if his mind is changing. His mind is changing because everything that he is doing now seems much easier with the use of the Internet. Carr recalls how “A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.” Just as Carr suggests how the Internet has helped him, I can also say that the Internet has also helped me get to what I’m looking for more effectively than I would if I was to look for information that I need in physical copies of books.

Carr’s published work was published in the July/August 2008 issue of The Atlantic under the technology section. During that time, you can say that technology and the use of the Internet really started to rapidly consume people and the way we started to think, read, write, and how we did our daily routines. The development of technology has been rapidly evolving since the time the article was written and published all the way to present day. This article contains many researches from other publishers such as when successful students from University College London who published a study of different habits people have when it comes to online researching (Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?). The downfall that could come from the text being published is that there aren’t any new or updated studies between 2017 and 2018 that broadens on the topics touched on in the text. The information within the text is still valid today but more updated information and studies would seem more credible and relatable to Carr’s audience today.

The genre of Is Google Making Us Stupid? is informative and technology education. Carr is informing his audience on main points and evidence based from researches and studies. Carr mentions how in his book in 1976, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation, late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum had observed how the view of the earth in which came from the vast use of timekeeping tools “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality” (Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?). The information provided by Carr is to inform, teach, and make an argument for his audience to interact with. Carr states “the Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition” (Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?) which points directly to the genre of technology education because not only is Carr referring to the way technology effects our mind, the way we read, and carry on in our daily lives, he is teaching us how technology is helping us in those ways as well in many other different phrases within the text.

Nicholas Carr is the author of the article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains, and has written multiple other books about technology, business, and culture. His book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, has been a piece for debate as it questions the effects on our thinking and ways we perceive things. Much of his writing is his criticism on our relationship and reliance on machines and technology in our lives. He also used to sit on the editorial board of advisers for Encyclopedia Britannica, steering board for the World Economic Forum’s cloud computing project, and worked at UC Berkeley as a writer-in-residence for the journalism school there. And has also received an award from the Media Ecology Association, the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity. Clearly a well versed writer on the topic of technology and the role it plays in our society along with the effects it has on us. (A writer of books, essays and ephemera)

The article is aimed towards 24-35 year old’s that use the internet for getting their information, recreational or for work. Since people within this age range are those that typically have been using technology like google for some time and know it well. They would also be the ones that would have the more prominent symptoms as younger kids are less likely to be constantly reading articles online. Also being the ones who would have professions more seriously, longer emails and documents that are surrounded by ads and other hyperlinks. And many people within this age range would be those that live a busy life and check the news via websites either on a computer or phone. As a result of this, they would be the most affected group from constantly being on either a computer or phone for work or leisurely purposes. With that said, it also makes them the target audience since it revolves around their lifestyle the most accurately. Opposed to the younger generation who don’t read articles online often or the older generation that doesn’t know how to navigate the internet as well, making it more difficult for those two groups to relate to the content of this piece.

The extensive use of the internet and the negative effects it has on our brain is the main message that Carr is trying to get across to the reader. He discusses how the accessibility of the information on the internet makes people lazier as they no longer have to go searching for it as hard. The way in which technology has impacted the brain is by making it more difficult for us to recall and retain information. This is caused by our cultures urge to make things more efficient and faster, which is the main purpose for technology. But as a result of connecting efficiency with reading, it is shown that those who use technology more tend to skim and not fully absorb the information in the article (Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains). He is bringing this issue to the forefront as technology continuously evolves and worsens the already evident problems with our memory.

Written on a website where it is common for other articles containing intellectual arguments similar to this one. The timing of the article was during a period where technology was rapidly evolving. With not many studies or much interest put into the long term effects of computer use, positive or negative, this was one of the first of its kind. Now bringing attention to the possible repercussions that extensive use of technology may cause to our society.

The genre in which this article falls under could be classified as primarily informative with the fact of how he revolves the piece around the negative effects. But could also be classified as being a little persuasive at the same time. This is shown through his bias of promoting a less dependent mind set on technology and reading online.

Being that the article is written on a website, there were many distractions pulling your attention away from the article. The writing by itself was not distracting as it was in black text and formatted like any other form of writing. But there were many ads on the side of the article as you scrolled down to read more. Also, ads were placed in between every four to five paragraphs. And they weren’t your typical small ads that the text could wrap around, they would take up majority if not all of your screen when you scrolled past. I found this to be distracting as they were clearly meant to grab your attention but not only did they do that, but it would also make it hard to focus on the topic of the prior paragraph after looking at a big moving ad. Typically these ads were videos, only one of the breaker ads was a small banner that didn’t take up majority of the screen when I read it.

Screenshot of one of the many massive ads, can barely see any text from article on whole screen

Ferris Jabr, author of The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Papers versus Screens informs his audiences with informational articles on various topics. Jabr is an experienced writer as he writer for multiple sites like The New Yorker, The New York Time Magazine, and Scientific American. He currently is still writing for those sites at in house in Portland Oregon and has been published recently. Known for his scientific articles Jabr spends a lot of his time writing about the environment and how humans interact with it. Jabr has a masters in journalism from New York University, and a Bachelors of Science from Tufts University. During his at Tufts University he study not only english but psychology. During an interview with the website Student Voices Jabr says, “So, for me, science writing is an incredibly effective a way to communicate how the world works. I also hope to write pieces that people enjoy reading.” (An Interview with Ferris Jabr). For this specific article Jabr talks about how what source you are reading on can affect what you comprehend. Ferris Jabr has proven to himself to be a very reliable source with an ample amount of knowledge about how our brain works and how it is changing with times.

As for the audience is concerned, Ferris Jabr tends to aim his writing towards educators and avid readers. The information that is being presented in The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Papers versus Screens is written at a level any high schooler would not have trouble reading. This allows for the article to be read easily and easy to follow. Jabr includes many facts about studies to back up his points in the article. Whenever he claims something in the text he provides a study done to back up his points. He does this to tell the audience that his claims are not of his own personal opinions but one developed through information. Jabr uses different techniques to grab the audience’s attention like either stating facts about a study, or a story of someone. To start the article uses story of a little girl whos is mistaking a magazine for an ipad. He states, “In a viral YouTube video from October 2011 a one-year-old girl sweeps her fingers across an iPad’s touch screen, shuffling groups of icons. In the following scenes she appears to pinch, swipe and prod the pages of paper magazines as though they too were screens.” (The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Papers versus Screens) This introduces the article’s main argument with a fun story that intreads people to keep on reading. The rest of the article can be geared towards anyone who reads on either e-readers or a book, but the targeted audience is educators. Jabr gives results of studies that tell if children read better n tablets or when reading with a book. It tells eductors which source is best for the students to best comprehend what they are reading. Jabr does a great job at balancing not just writing to educators, but to anyone who is just scrolling through Scientific American and was interested in the article.

The purpose for Ferris Jabr to write this article was to inform the readers the science behind reading on a screen versus a book. He tells the readers the advantages of reading on a book rather than reading on a screen. He goes through the effects of the digital age has had on how kids learned how to read and write. Jabr structures his article in a way which he would claim why the digital age is affecting how people read, and then explains why that is through evidence. He wants to inform people like educators the effects of learning to read on a screen, or reading too much on a screen. His argument of this claim is that students become less interested in reading while reading on a screen, and do not comprehend as much as opposed to reading on paper. He backs up this argument with, “evidence from laboratory experiments, polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension.” (The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Papers versus Screens). Jabr claims his argument and then provides results of studies to to defend it.

This article was written in the spring of 2013, e-readers have been out for almost 6 years as the Kindle first came out in 2007. This being published in about 5 years ago means the information can still be used, but might be a little outdated as new studies might have been done. This being said all the research will be up to date with the article. Jabr also mentions past studies that have been done on the topic. Here Jabr states, “Before 1992 most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early 1990s, however, have produced more inconsistent results:”  (The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Papers versus Screens). Then later on the article Jabr will dissect later studies to help argue his claim. Beside him mentioning research being done before 1992 the information in the article is still relevant as the latest study he mentions was a study done by Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway in 2013. This being posted on Scientific American gives it more credibility as Scientific American is a well known site that post multiple articles every day.

The piece of writing is an essay. Jabr uses an interesting and funny story as an introduction to interest people in reading the article. He uses other people’s quotes and studies to emphasize and prove his point. When reading this article, the reader does not the feeling that Jabr is trying to convince the reader that e-readers are terrible and should have never been made, but him telling the reader that reading on a screen can affect how you learn. Jabr wrote a very easy to follow article that was easy to comprehend. It was a great article to let readers know what the difference is between reading on a screen compared to a book.