Where do we start looking to find extraterrestrial life? It seems many people have different opinions on this and also on just exactly which of us should be looking. In comparing two different articles from two different authors both of which were published by Popular Science magazine, you can definitely tell the difference of opinions in terms of genre.
In "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" author Matt Ransford makes it pretty apparent that his intended audience is professional scientists. Much of the terminology of the article would only be understood by professional scientists. Much of the article goes over the history of finding trying to find alien life through science. It even discusses equations. Very clearly this information would only seem interesting to scientists. The article also explores the future of finding alien life, also through science. The article would be rather boring to someone who wasn't a scientist.
On the other hand, in "The Search Is On" author Jennifer Abbasi clearly uses the public as her intended audience, in particular those interested in supporting extraterrestrial life, astronomy, and space exploration programs. Abbasi uses laymens terms and the article is very interesting and understandable by most normal people. Abbasi clearly tries to drum up support for these programs from the public and even cites ways to send money to the programs. While science is definitely involved in the article, it is written to appeal to the public.
The really shocking part is that both of these articles were published by Popular Science Magazine. The genre of both articles are very telling to their audience and their views. It seems unusual though to see both views in one publication. However, the Ransford article was published in 2008 and the Abbasi article was published just this month. Many state sponsored extraterrestrial life programs have been closed during this time period, which would lead one to reason that this is the reason for the newer publication.
Genre helps me to understand the similarities in the articles. The subject matter and methods discussed are much the same. However, genre also helps me to visualize the difference in intended audience by the language that is used, and also descriptors. The Ransford article is much more technical and would be boring to many members of the public. The Abbasi article seems to say we should all be doing this together, while the Ransford article seems to say if you're not a scientist, don't bother trying to read this.
Of the two, I much prefer the Abbasi article because its easier to understand. I don't need a dictionary and a science book to read it. The Ransford article, however, does contain more beautiful pictures. Maybe thats the part the rest of us are supposed to "read".
So even though we are all looking for E.T., it would seem as if there's a difference of opinion on who should be looking.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print.
I think you misunderstand how we are defining genre here. Both of these are from a similar genre and are directed at a similar audience. I lectured extensively on this in class--our definition of genre is rhetorically-based rather than a system of classification.
ReplyDeleteI'm also worried because you selected two sources for the same audience--remember, paper two is to have one source for a popular audience versus a source for a specialist audience, examining how they compare. It doesn't quite work if you're merely comparing viewpoints.