This article can be found at: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/09/thomas_edison_his_light_bulb_invention_was_a_publicity_stunt.html
Alison Griswold writes Thomas
Edison and the Myth of the Lone Inventor. As the title suggests, she
disputes the perception that many people have of inventors, primarily Edison,
laboring away to single-handedly create something fantastic. To do this, she uses
syntax, diction, and detail.
First, Griswold uses syntax to portray the endless evidence
there is that Edison did not invent the light bulb on his own (or at all, for
that matter). Throughout her short article, Griswold consistently repeats the
word “myth” to emphasize that the story of Edison is just that. She also
uses many lists and cuts off her sentences, as if she could go on and on but
does not have the time to do so. For instance, she says, “even if the actual
details are fuzzy – he tested 1,000, 6,000, 10,000, or some other number of
filaments…” She also choppily adds at the end, “Edison,
in other words, is not so much the man behind the myth as his story is the myth
behind the man.” She uses syntax to illustrate that she is only putting forward a
fraction of the evidence that there is proving that Edison did not invent the
light bulb himself.
Griswold also uses diction to express her strong disapproval
of the perception people have of “lone inventors.” She starts off her article
saying that Edison’s story is America’s “favorite,” but it resulted of a
“tremendous” publicity scam. She says that “in short” it was Edison’s partners,
the muckers, who “created” him. Griswold uses diction to dismiss all the credit
that it typically given to Edison and hopes to change people’s view of him.
Finally, Griswold employs specific detail in her article to
validate her points. She explains how oftentimes people think of how hard
Edison worked to create the perfect light bulb when actually the laboratory he
worked at “was famous for generating more than 400 patents in just six years.”
She also quotes an author that writes about “‘the muckers at Menlo Park’” and
how they “‘were such a fertile source of source of ideas that it seems odd that
their presence is typically dropped from the story.’” She finally concludes
that the muckers decided that it would be better to market only Edison rather
than the entire group, so they “capitalized on that by mythologizing him.”
Griswold uses details, diction, and syntax to dissuade people
from believing that Edison invented the light bulb “in a dusty workshop by
himself.” He perfected the light bulb with the help of others, but certainly
did not invent it by himself.
Hey there again Jackie. Very nice post. First off, I would like to refute some of the negativity here towards Edison. While it is true that he did not invent the light bulb on his own, I believe he did invent the operating system that would power the light bulbs in city areas all by himself. So he was quite a strong lone inventor. That being said. I like your comments on Griswolds piece. The analysis of syntax I thought was fair, although I don't know that the cutting off of sentences adds credence to their being a huge body of evidence for the author to use. While it may be true, I think you should state it as a possibility that she has much evidence. Not a fact.
ReplyDeleteThanks for an interesting read. As a Tesla groupie myself, I agree with a lot of this stuff. To rebutt Garrett's refutation, it is possible that he invented the DC system himself, though perhaps not likely, given his well-known penchant for taking credit for the work of his team, but it is also a basically strictly inferior system to Westinghouse's AC current system for transmission over long distances, which is what Edison tried to use his DC system for, and one that he promoted through a cruel and violent propaganda campaign involving the public electrocution of animals. Tangent aside, good analysis of rhetorical technique in this essay. I would recommend talking more about what detail was left out of the story, though, as that is almost always a very important part of detail, and contributes a lot to message and impact. You could also do a little more explicit analysis of the impact of her choice of diction. The implications are there, but would benefit from being made explicit. Overall, good job.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJackie, your essay was really interesting! The original op-ed piece you used for analysis brought up a topic a lot of people don't think about. I think your examples for you first body paragraph are great. The cutting off implies there's more to be said, which shows the author's disdain towards Edison. I think your second body paragraph is lacking a lot of solid evidence that the first one was packing. It also seems to depend on quotes quite a bit, even when they aren't necessary. I don't think the words you chose really show the diction in the essay. Instead, they seem to just be some words that happened to be in the essay. Again, a similar problem emerges in your third body paragraph, thought not quite as much. Your examples are still not totally connecting to your thesis, but you're on the right track.
ReplyDelete