This week, I’d like to take a look at two blogs I found that pertain to creativity and intellectual property.
The first post comes from the blog Phosita, an intellectual property law blog. This post, entitled Facebook Shuts Down “Facebook Ultimate” iPad App, describes how some intellectual property laws can trip up new entrepreneurs trying to break into the market. In this case, the article uses sympathetic language by stating the offender as a mom and other words with negative connotation like “unhappy” and “shuts down” to appeal to the reader’s sense of pathos. The writer also appeals to narrative in the introduction by giving a short account of what happened. Later in the post, the writer uses some logical appeals to point out the flaws in the app-designers methodology and to highlight the importance of seeking legal assistance to ensure you aren’t infringing on copywrited work.
The second post comes from the blog Learning Today, a blog that focuses on child development and learning. The post, Spurring Creativity Online, begins by describing common childhood craft products to engage the reader. Once the reader’s emotions have been engaged, the author provides several online creativity options for children in a straightforward, informative tone. The author appeals to ethos twice, first by saying how much she “enjoyed playing” one of the Crayola online games, and again by describing a Lego game that also engaged her.
These posts are very different because they address entirely different audiences. The Phosita post reads more like a news blurb while the Learning Today article seems like an informational for parents and teachers. For the most part, they use entirely different rhetorical conventions, though both use pathos in some capacity or another. Personally, I feel that both posts achieve their ends. The Phosita blog is intended to inform the general public of instances in which intellectual property law has been used. The Learning Today post aims to provide new mediums for instructors to use.
I like that you linked the websites so we could go and read them ourselves, that's useful. Also you effectively interpreted the two blogs and described them to give us a clear view of what they were trying to do.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of both blogs is really good. I understand what points they were trying to get across in both blogs. I like how both blogs were very different, but still about your general topic.
ReplyDeleteGood job with this analysis. I like that you pointed out the use of pathos in each blog entry with specific examples. Also, your analysis of how each article was intended to be read/what audience each article was intended for was very well thought out.
ReplyDeleteI think it was important to note that the audiences seemed to be different, and I'm glad that you did that. I think your analysis was spot on. Although, as you said, the rhetorical conventions were varying, I think you did a great job explaining them individually.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the different blogs target different audiences, and they convey different messages. I feel that both are effective in their own areas though. I like the choice of these two blogs as they compare interesting ideas and messages.
ReplyDelete