Comparative genre analysis

Courtney Earls

COMP 010

2/26/2018

There’s a variety of genres, many seem to overlap and are composed of subgenres. Paul

Roberts wrote a journalist piece called, “A Transition to Renewable Energy Sources Is Not

Feasible”. And Philip Abelson wrote an academic piece called, “Power from wind turbines”.

They both are similar by their content which, relates to power sources. Both of the pieces genres

are nonfiction, but their subgenres are very different. Nonfiction is a kind of writing that’s based

on facts and events.

Genre is when a group of texts share similar qualities. An example of this is texts that

make up drama, which share similarities to one another. And because they all share similarities

we see them as a group/genre. Also genre helps writers better convey their message to readers.

Genre assists the writer in having have a better format. The format gives the writer an idea of

what kind of piece they want to create.

Genre can be a useful tool in categorizing different pieces of writing. As stated earlier

they are both nonfiction, but they have a distinct difference. That difference is their subgenre,

Roberts piece falls under the persuasive writing category. And Abelson’s piece falls under the

informative writing genre. Informative writing genre explains and gives a lot of facts about

what’s going on towards the topic.

 These pieces have some similaritys and differences that can be seen through their

organization. One difference was “A Transition to Renewable Energy Sources Is Not Feasible”

had a lot more sources and further reading than “Power from wind turbines”. The format of

Roberts’s piece helped show its genre; he appeared to take the nonrenewable side. Also

Roberts’s piece differed from Abelson because it had headings.

A way Abelson’s format was also different from Roberts’s was he had an abstract

at the bottom of his informative piece. His abstract gave a brief overview of the paper, including

the conclusion. But overall both pieces seemed to try to take a formal approach. And both

Abelson’s and Roberts’s piece were about the same length.

Both of these pieces are meant to target a small audience group. The audience of

Roberts’s and Abelson piece would most likely be professors, students, graduates, and people

involved in the debatable topic.

When writers are creating a piece they have a purpose in mind. Abelson main goal in

writing his paper was meant to educate readers. He wanted to inform them about how wind

power is getting cheaper and the stats behind it. While Roberts purpose was to persuade the

reader to see that renewable resources aren’t enough to sustain us. Roberts said in his article,

“Here's a depressing fact: The entire output of every solar photovoltaic (PV) cell currently

installed worldwide—about 2,000 megawatts total—is less than the output of just two

conventional, coal-fired power plants.” This showed persuasion because he used emotion and

static logic to back it up.

 These two pieces are different in a number of ways. The tone in “Power from wind

turbines” was informative. It provided a lot of facts and statics. Both pieces were brief, but gave

the reader enough information about the topic at hand.

Abelson piece differs from Roberts greatly, he took a more academic stance on the topic.

The tone in “A Transition to Renewable Energy Sources Is Not Feasible” was outspoken and

appeared to be biased. Roberts made quite a few statements that seemed to sway towards the

nonrenewable resource side. In his piece he said, “Yet the hard truth is that this hyper-optimistic

dream is plagued by a variety of potentially killer flaws”. The purpose in Roberts’s piece was to

persuade the reader on the debatable topic.

Roberts used stats in his genre piece, but showed bias. Roberts said, “Of that "good"

energy, nearly 90 percent comes from hydroelectric dams, which are so expensive and

environmentally nasty that their future role is extremely limited.” This showed that Roberts was

biased in his piece.

These two genres have different points of ethos, pathos and logos. The authors used them

to help define each piece better. Roberts’s used logos quite a few times even though his paper

overall was biased. Roberts said, “Today, hydrocarbons own the energy market—40 percent of

our energy comes from oil, 23 percent each from gas and coal. Nuclear provides around 8

percent, while renewable, carbon-free energy accounts for barely 5 percent of our total energy

supply.” Roberts shows logos through this quote because it was logical and statistical. Abelson

also used logos in his piece with a lot of different numerical data. In Abelson’s piece he said,

“Costs per kilowatt-hour (kWh) have diminished from about 30 cents in 1980 to a recent 7 to 9

cents. With new, improved machines, costs soon will be 5 cents/kWh.”

 These two genre pieces have shown a variety of differences and similarities. And genre

helps categorize them as their own kind of piece. While Roberts had better statics and more

further reading sources, it seemed that Abelson conveyed his message better. Abelson did this

by taking the non-bias approach, which allowed the reader to trust the author more. Also it

allowed the reader to have their own thoughts.

Sources

Abelson, Philip H. "Power from wind turbines." Science, vol. 261, no. 5126, 1993, p. 1255.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A14428481/OVIC?u=ucinc_main&xid=da8a0282. Accessed

8 Mar. 2018.

Roberts, Paul. "A Transition to Renewable Energy Sources Is Not Feasible." Energy

Alternatives, edited by Barbara Passero, Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010220241/OVIC?u=ucinc_main&xid=7b010bce.

Accessed 8 Mar. 2018. Originally published as "Over a Barrel," Mother Jones, Nov.-Dec. 2004.