Insert Witty Title Here

OK, this is the third time that I am attempting to post this, so I hope it works this time. Stick around, and you may hear me rant about why I hate my computer.

I talked in a previous post about the differences between implicit arguments and explicit arguments. If you hated that post, then you're going to hate this one, too.

My assignment is to talk about the cartoon on Page 1 and the advertisement on Page 24. I'm assuming that you don't have the same book that I do, but if you really really really want to know what I'm talking about, there is a link to the book here. So, because you don't actually have the book I have sitting in front of you, I will do my best to make this post readable by anyone. After all, my point is about how it is beneficial to take into account your audience when crafting and editing an argument. Not about how I'm an A+ student (I'm not).

The cartoon on Page 1 is just that. A cartoon. Nothing more than a small frame of black and white animation that is intended for brief comical effect. Sure, there are small differences, like how Doonesbury is considerably more political than Garfield, but Doonesbury is only for entertainment purposes.

Conversely, the Advertisement on Page 24 is not for comic effect. It's designed for education. The education of the reader/viewer. Obviously it's not a forty page scholarly white paper, but it is intended to be a bit more educational than the comic.

The important thing about writing arguments is to realize that when it comes to audience, it's NOT one-size-fits-all. It's more like hand-crafted shoes: there is no mold, just a new argument for every audience. The comic reaches much more people, has a much shorter amount of time to communicate it's point, has different requirements (like it should probably be funny–that's why it's called a "comic"). The full-page ad was run in a health magazine, where the audience was a much more concerned, educated, select few who are already committed to making a change in the way that America deals with food.

By now, I'm sure I've bored the boots off of you. Let me give you a little more exciting example of why the two are different. Keep on reading, it gets better.

I am a movie maker. A triple threat, as they're called. Some even call us "slashes", because I am usually the writer / director / producer / editor / hair stylist /… well, you get the idea. And I can tell you that from experience that writing… oh, say a short, five minute documentary about the dark side of the fast food industry is vastly different from writing an hour and a half romantic comedy about conjoined twins who fall in love with their math professor's niece. Oh yes. Very different.ﾠ

I hope that by now you get the idea. Here's hoping that this post makes it, and doesn't crash and burn like the first two did.