Taylor Ann Lawhead
Prof. Christopher Brown
English 1B
March 25, 2013
A
Rhetorical Critique of “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Nicholas Carr
Every day there is some new technological advancement
making its way into the world in an attempt to make life easier for people. In
the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, author Nicholas Carr explains his
thoughts on how he believes the internet is running the risk of making people full
of artificial knowledge. Carr begins by explaining how he feels that the web is
causing his focus issues, how he can no longer be completely immersed in a book,
and the reason why he gets fidgety while reading. He then goes on to talk about
how his life is surrounded by the internet and how that is the blame for the
issues he has towards not being able to stay connected to a text; but at the
same time says how and why the web has been a ‘godsend’ because he is a writer.
In an attempt to draw the reader in, Carr uses a great deal of rhetorical
appeals. He compares the differences of the past and the present and how he
feels how it has changed not only himself, but others as well and how they are
able to comprehend and focus due to the growing nature of the web. While
comparing this, he accumulated research from several credited writers who feel
the same way he does about the effects of the web. Carr uses personal
experience, vivid imagery, and analysis backed by research to hook the viewer
in and persuade them that in today’s society, the internet is causing mainly
problems.
Although Carr has his own personal experiences with the
negative effects of the web, he also did his research on how other writers had
agreed with him on the subject to help support his strategies of logos. The use
of the evidence from the other writers helps to draw in the reader and show
them the effects of the internet with the help of reputable resources. In the
article, he states that one of the articles he gained information from had
said, “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense”;
that the way we read now is what you would call ‘skimming’ or reading “horizontally
through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins”. With
reading on the web, people don’t read the entire article and it is seen that
they bounce from page to page, losing focus quickly. Carr uses this information
because the reader can relate to it, like himself. Like in the article he uses
to support his case, he agrees how people, like himself, lose focus rather
quickly when reading on the web, and it is causing people to lose focus when
looking at physical readings. This information that gathered helps his article
because it is not in conflict with what he had stated. Another example of logos
that Carr uses is when a writer, Maryanne Wolf, describes how due to text
messaging and cell phones we are experiencing a different type of reading today
than in the 1960’s and 70’s; a type of reading that “may be weakening our capacity for the kind of
deep reading”. This is useful in the sense that it is
evidence is aimed towards a younger age and therefore can pull in a different
audience. This example, while still logos due to it based on evidence and
facts, can also be considered ethos in a sense that he is trying to ‘build a
bridge’ in a connection with his audience. Although this seems like a strong
strategy to relate to a different age based audience, it could also conflict
with others that already have a set perceived notion about these effects. In
another part of the article he contradicts himself by using the information
from James Olds, a professor of neuroscience, when he states that the human
mind is very malleable and has the ability to reprogram itself. When using this
information, its conflicts with the statement from Wolf about the reading of
texts weakening the mind. Although he uses facts from reputable sources to show
that he is knowledgeable about the subject, due to the contradicting
information it can cause the reader to question whether or not he knows where
he is going with the topic.
While using the strategy of facts and evidence can be
effective, Carr also uses vivid imagery and detailed wording to reel the reader
in. The author uses the strategy of pathos to make the reader interpret his
views the way that he sees them himself. An example of this would be when he
talks about the way he loses focus in a text and that he feels he is “dragging
his wayward brain back” to whatever he was reading. Carr uses this metaphor,
giving an action to an object, to show the reader exactly the difficulty he has
staying focused on a reading and how he has to almost ‘physically’ bring his
mind back to the text. He is trying to show his struggle to the reader. Another
example of this strategy of pathos would be how he says that he “once was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now
[he] zip(s) along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” He attempts to pull the
reader in by using this vivid imagery to show how he used to be fully immersed
in a book but now due to the Net, he just skims the readings and doesn’t get to
see what is below the surface. The use of the imagery and the figurative
language can be very effective due to that it can pull in every age of audience
because it appeals to a person’s imagination. I believe that the use of pathos,
when done correctly, can be very moving and persuasive. Carr used the right
language to pull the reader in and to show how he was feeling without being too
over the top, and was able to persuade his reader to the effects of the web in
today’s society.
In Nicholas Carr’s
article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he uses the rhetorical strategies to try
to persuade his audience into believing that due to the Web being used so much
in today’s society, that it is causing more harm than good. He uses backed up
information to get his point across while also showing his character to connect
with the audience. Carr also uses the strategy of pathos to appeal to the
readers imagination to pull them in to show what he experienced. I feel that
although I may not agree with everything he is stating, the things he used were
persuasive enough to keep the reader reading, and some agreeing with him that
the internet is causing more harm to the human mind.
