final draft for Carr essay

One of the biggest revolutions that carried our society to be a more efficient and technologically friendly era is the invention of Google. Google is a multi trillion-dollar search engine that allows anyone in the world access to any type of information they wish to know. Because this drastic change in present-day society has a very large effect on the way lives are lived, there are many different views, both positive and negative, regarding the large role it has on people now. Among those who see Google as an increasing danger to us and the way we think is Nicholas Carr. In order to educate people concerning the negativity he sees behind Google, he argues his side in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. He claims that Google is changing the way we used to think for the worse. He believes this is evident due to him noticing a change in the way he now thinks with Google being a part of his life.

In this essay I will be examining three specific rhetorical strategies that Carr uses in his writing. First, I will open my paper with my examination regarding his use of ethos and how it contributes to his article. Then, I will analyze how he uses authority and other “big names” and incorporates it to aid his credibility in the reader’s eyes. Lastly, I will examine his use of a motive he instills within the reader in order to help him fully understand the topic because he is still uncertain with just how Google has changed us and to what extent.

Carr’s main strategy in his text is his implementation of ethos. He understands that due to the nature of our society, it was evident that something like Google was bound to exist. However, he didn’t know just to what extent it would change his pattern of thinking. “Over the past few years, I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory”(Course Reader 58). Truly this is a subjective happening. It is foolish to think that an inanimate object like “Google” can force itself into one’s brain and change the way people think. Carr can simply just limit his use of the software in order to reverse what he claims to be happening inside his head. His purpose is evident, however, that he wishes to encourage the reader to look at the situation from a different perspective. With the use of ethos, it is easier to see the bird’s eye view on each individual situation. We can better understanding where we stand as individuals and the importance Google has on our lives. The use of ethos furthers his central claim by understanding that the opinions of others are subjective. “For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind” (Course Reader 59). Although the use of his colorful and persuasive diction in order to accurately illustrate where he stands in order to grab the reader and make him seem more credible, he does leave is open for discussion. This is apparent through the first few words in his quote when he specifies that his feelings may be the same for others rather than telling his audience that this is what is happening to everyone as a result from Google.

Another way Carr strategizes to prove credibility to his audience is his abundant use of authorities or “big names”. With the help of Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University, he claims, “we may be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind, it lies a different kind of thinking” (Course Reader 60). He validates this by expanding his point through Wolf who “worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace” (Course Reader 60). This is the bulk of his article: fluff from other authorities. He doesn’t put as much of his personal opinion as he should in his work because it ends up drowning in the other information others provide. This is truly ironic because he claims he is having a harder time thinking for himself since Google. But here he is, using the ideas and experiences of others in his work to help him complete his thoughts. Although he does use this strategy to build trust within the reader for his argument, however he does overuse this strategy, which plays as a devil’s advocate and makes his argument a little less effective.

The third rhetorical strategy I will be observing in Carr’s work is his use of a motive. In this particular strategy, Carr does an excellent job letting the reader know what he wishes to instill in the reader with the use of his motive. Although he doesn’t use this a large amount of this strategy in the body of his writing, he does conclude with it, leaving the reader with a more “open-ended” idea of everything he said prior to his conclusion. “So yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proven correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom” (Course Reader 63). His quote allows the reader to understand that he is not completely sure if his accusations are correct, he is just skeptical of the way Google has altered our lives and how quickly we allowed it to change our lifestyles. This leaves the reader with a sense of uncertainty and the desire to continue to look for more evidence regarding Google and its affect on people, which is what Carr is looking for because he is truly interested and passionate about this and will openly take any other information that may make him more knowledgeable.

As I read Carr’s work I noticed that I wasn’t very convinced with what he was trying to convey. Although my view is different than his anyway, his overuse of authorities and other “big names” takes away from his credibility in my opinion. It makes him sound like he is just taking the ideas of others and using them in his studies because he is too naïve on the subject to make his own accusations. I do still believe even after reading Carr’s article that Google has very much so progressed us as a society. We now have more access to things we wish to know. I think this is very important to us because we can only retain so much knowledge, and having such a large amount of information available to us at any time is a very useful thing that we can apply to what we already know. Google was never intended as an alternative to thinking, rather an aid to help us be more successful in life.