Hannah Landecker illustrates the story of Henrietta Lacks and the cells, which made her famous throughout “Hela”. Landecker delves immediately into the scientific explanation of these cells, which were cultured from Henrietta Lacks, with such technicalities as cell lines and cloning. On the other hand, the New York Times article illustrates the story of Henrietta Lacks and her cells, but through a very different lens. This lens allows the reader to be on a more personalized level with Lacks, rather than a scientific level with her cells.
The most interesting thing about these two writings for me was that “Hela” is an attempt at popular style press writing seemingly, but when compared to the New York Times it is clearly lacking essential parts. Popular press writing, as seen in this article, draws on mainly pathos as a rhetorical technique. This technique is highly successful in obtaining large numbers of readers. As most popular press writing, this article begins with the “who”; who are we reading about, who should be concerned, etc. On the other hand, scientific writing, such as “Hela”, appeals more to the logos typically. This piece of writing, therefore, in my opinion is not directly classified as the typical scientific journal writing, which consists of figures and tables, statistics, and methods, but rather of an attempt at more popular style of scientific writing. However, in its attempt to be popular, it is not perfect, because of its lacking in explanation of technical terms and procedures that are not commonly understood by the average person. Therefore, while I do see this as a step toward a more succinct popular scientific style of writing, I do feel that it is missing critical definitions and explanations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Popular press writing, as seen in this article, draws on mainly pathos as a rhetorical technique."
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree. Most popular press science magazines/non-science magazines I have don't really draw from any of the three classical appeals. Often, instead, they utilize some sort of interpretation of science (sometimes bordering on pseudoscience) but the substance of popular press arguments on the subject of science are usually not appeal to pathos. The title and opening page/picture often may be, but the content often is not.
I believe that newspapers and other periodicals draw from the three classical appeals in varying forms, according to subject matter. From my research in preparing for the midterm paper, I would have to agree with Jordan (Jackson). I feel that, for the most part, newspapers tend to take complex or perhaps 'intimidating' topics and make them more 'personalized' for the reader. Perhaps the the NYT article may not draw on a strict definition of pathos, but it does make the subject matter more approachable, personal, and relatable to a general audience.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps the the NYT article may not draw on a strict definition of pathos, but it does make the subject matter more approachable, personal, and relatable to a general audience."
ReplyDeleteI like this reformulation. Perhaps pathos is a bit too "strong" in this case; most of the content of popular science articles are not really that emotionally involving. They are certainly *more* emotionally involving than the corresponding science journal articles, but not enough so that I would classify it as pathos.
Thanks Jonah.
ReplyDeleteTo jump in on this discussion of pathos, I would add that a "pathetic" appeal can also be an appeal to an audience's self-interest, not just what we tend to think of as excessive emotionalizing. In that light, many popular science articles that take it for granted that we will want to read because they are talking about "life-saving" technologies or cures for our ailments are operating on the level of pathos.
ReplyDelete