"Theater for Twits" By Peter Funt

In "Theater for Twits" writer and television host Peter Funt addresses the emergence of "tweet seats" inside classical theaters. With the use of ironic commentery, Funt conveys his disagreement with the idea of theaters having sections where texting and tweeting is encouraged. Throughout the article, Funt claims that this "confluence of social media and the arts" disrupts the experience for the majority of paying theatregoers. He supports this argument by giving examples of some socially aware theatergoer's (as he identifies them) tweets. Tweets like "Music hall looks a lot prettier from the top balcony" as posted by withak53 at the Cincinnati Symphony are what Funt views as agitating.

Within his article, Funt utilizes the Aristotle appeals in order to persuade his audience to agree with his argument against "tweet seats". His use of irony and sarcasm provide very effective appeals to his audiences emotions. For instance when referring to the Palm Beach Opera's use of "tweet seats" he states, "Since you already have super titles to provide the English translation, why not also display messages from the tweet seats? They could scroll along during the show, the way CNN and Fox News Channel have been running distracting viewer tweets across the bottom of the TV screen during presidential debates". The amount of sarcasm loaded into those two simple statements serve to humorly sway the reader to agree with his argument. Moreover, his use of sarcasm displays his agitation at the concept of tweet seats and in turn elicite similar agitation from his audience.In doing so, he includes his audience in his argument and gives the impression that he wants them on his side. In addition to pathos, Funt appeals to the logic of his audience by questioning the reasoning behind theaters' decision to contain sections where communicating via twitter is encouraged. He questions this decision in the second paragragh where his states, "Are promoters so desperate to attract younger audiences that they’re willing to risk disrupting the experience for the majority of paying theatergoers The answer, in five characters, is 'u bet.'". Statements such as this imply that theater's don't really care about their audiences and push Funt's audience to oppose "tweet seats". Lastly, Funt builds credibility in the eyes of his audience when he uses examples of actual theaters who use "tweet seats". He refers to theaters like the Cincinnati Symphony and the Palm Beach Opera. Furthermore, he gives examples of other instances where tweets are posted at unusual times (ex. NFL players & sportswriters posting during games). Through appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos writer Peter Funt effectly conveys his opinion that the emergence of "tweet seats" is unnecessary and disruptive in theaters.

In my opinion, I agree with Peter Funt. Even though I am not a "theatergoer", I would definately be irritated with a person posting vague and absurd things during a show I am interested in. And besides, if the use of "tweet seats" continues, whats to say that it wouldn't move on into movie theaters? I absolutely would hate it if I'm emersed into a great movie and then get distracted by light reflecting off the phone of a person sitting around me. I'm pretty sure I would not be able to tolerate it. Peter Funt projects a very convincing argument in this article. And I agree that it would be very annoying and Funt has persuaded me that there should be no place for "tweet seats."

"How To Write an Incendiary Blog Post" By Chris Clarke

Author/Blogger Chris Clarke

In the essay "How to Write an Incendiary Blog Post", author and popular blogger Chris Clarke gives readers some insight into the art of blogging. With a derisive/mocking tone, Clarke analyzes the structure used some other authors in an effort to create inflammatory and controversial blogs. He delivers a step-by-step analysis by stating what is found in each sentence of an "incendiary blog post".

Throughout his essay, Clarke repeats "This sentence" at the beginning of every sentence in the passage. His use of this anaphora is a reminder to readers that the goal of his essay is to show how some authors blog. It allows Clarke to detail to readers the point behind every sentence in such an essay/ blog. Moreover, his repetition of "this sentence" throughout the entire essay serves to depict to the audience the absurdity that some authors employ in their blogs. In addition to repetition, Clarke uses a mocking tone to show the ridiculousness of some blogs. For example, in a one sentence paragraph Clarke states "this sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight." His use of derisory humor is an attempt to persuade readers that some blogs contain arguments so banal, that it'd be pointless to waste their time to read them. His humorous approach to his topic is also a very persuasive appeal to the reader's emotions. Furthermore, Clarke consistently emphasizes that many of the points made in such blogs are either illogical, "tenuous", "wildly overgeneralized condemnations", or don't even fit the topic being addressed. His diction used in such instances (in this essay) add to his mocking of those types of blogs. Additionally, his emphasis on those points are persuasive appeals to logos because they require the reader to question the reasoning behind some of the blogs, they receive information from.

I personally am not very accustomed to the world of blogging. I am not a big blogger, nor am I a person who reads many blogs so I don't know if what Clarke said is true for all "incendiary" blogs. However, some essays and other forms of writing I have read do follow the criteria of Clarke's "incendiary blog". Some authors do use circular logic or non sequitur statements to support their arguments, often citing those statements as logical connections. Some of the blogs I have read tend to use pointless or weak ideas to reinforce their topic and often result in conclusions that "don't quite fit the topic." Though I am not a typical blogger, I myself have made some illogical comments and claimed that such comments supported my argument perfectly. In my opinion, the notions made in Clarke's essay can also be directed at all forms of writing, not just blogs. Some writers resort to nonsensical statements or ideas that don't really connect with their topics in order to be controversial.