Carter Perrin

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100: section 22

9 December 2010

Informal Language, Credibility, and Humor: are Theodora Stites and Ellen DeGeneres’

Works Rhetorically Strong Enough to be Included in the Next Edition of They Say/I Say.

It is obvious that technology has a role in the lives of people today, but is this role positive or

negative? Theodora Stites and Ellen DeGeneres certainly don’t agree on the answer. In her

article, “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map),” Stites defends the use of technology

to foster relationships through the virtual world. Quite oppositely, DeGeneres argues that

modern technology frustrates people, complicates small tasks, and is unnecessary. While both

authors effectively use conversational language and tone to appeal to ethos, Stites is more

effective in her ability to establish her credibility. Additionally, her more persuasive use of

humor and logic make her argument the stronger one. Stites’ article is rhetorically more

powerful; therefore, Stites’s “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map)” would make a

better candidate for inclusion in the next edition of They Say/I Say.

In her New York Times article, “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map),” Theodora

Stites attempts to justify her usage of multiple social networking sites. Stites, a twenty-four-

year-old, is part of a generation that relies upon new technologies for social interaction; but many

believe that this new online world of “virtual intimacy” has negative effects on a person’s

development. Stites defends these sites and their users through a detailed narrative of her daily

use of such technologies. This personal format bolsters her argument in that it gives credence to
 Perrin 2

her role as an author on the topic. In her article, Stites admits that no social networking site is

perfect, but she also upholds that these tools for online interaction are great ways to meet new

people and to become a part of an online community.

In contrast, Ellen DeGeneres, in “This Is How We Live,” argues the impracticality of modern

technology. DeGeneres uses an informal style of writing, allowing her to appeal to the average

person. In agreement with the informal tone and average person audience is a strong use of

humor, which pervades the whole of DeGeneres work. Additionally, by drawing on experiences

common to her audience, like technology in the public restroom, DeGeneres attempts to connect

with her audiences’ sense of pathos. With her rhetorical focus being on informal tone and

satirical humor, DeGeneres argues that technology can be frustrating, can complicate simple

tasks, and allows for human laziness.

Vital to understanding the rhetoric of both works is the realization that DeGeneres and Stites

write to different audiences, which is evidenced by the different medium each author uses.

Because Stites is writing for the New York Times, she is writing to a more educated audience.

While her language is not overly sophisticated, it is definitely more refined in its humor than

DeGeneres’s work. DeGeneres, who uses an exaggerated style of humor, is writing to an

“average-person” type of audience, one that is not necessarily well educated. DeGeneres is also

writing in the context of her book, The Funny Thing Is…, which affects her purpose for writing.

DeGeneres’ main goal in her book is to make people laugh, not necessarily to effectively use

rhetoric to persuade. Because Stites is writing for the New York Times and DeGeneres is writing

for her comedic book, the two authors use different styles of rhetorical techniques based upon

their audiences.

First, Stites and DeGeneres both use conversational language and tone to effectively appeal
 Perrin 3

to their audiences’ sense of ethos. Stites, through her use of background information about

herself, establishes her role as a “friend” of her audience. Stites begins with “I’m 24 years old,

have a good job, friends. But like many of my generation, I consistently trade actual human

contact for the more reliable emotional high of smiles on MySpace, winks on Match.com and

pokes on Facebook.” Her opening remarks are humorous, friendly, and effective at relating

herself to her audience. By opening her article in such a way, Stites effectively closes the

distance between the lives of her audience and her own, and thus puts herself in a position from

which her argument will be more compelling to her intended audience. Similarly to Stites,

DeGeneres also masters the use of informal language to create an intimate perception of herself

in the minds of her audience. DeGeneres uses informal language to discuss how the technology

of phones has advanced and recalls when “the kitchen wall phone came along…[with its]…90-

foot-long cord that allowed you to walk all around the house…so that by the time you hung up

the phone, it had become a tangled wire of cord confusion. But what was fun about it was that…

you would hold the phone upside down and let it spin and spin, around and around, till it found

its center. Good times” (592). DeGeneres’ language here, and throughout her article, is not

particularly sophisticated or complex. While DeGeneres’ choice of writing style may appear to

be unrefined, in truth, this style of writing correlates to her audience of average people seeking a

laugh. Additionally, DeGeneres enforces her use of conversational tone by asking questions to

her reader and using phrases like “let me ask you…” (589). By asking questions, DeGeneres

effectively involves her audience in her argument, thereby solidifying her position of intimacy

with the reader. DeGeneres is effective at using tone to appeal to her audience’s sense of ethos,

as is Stites. Both authors use tone in a similar way to create a sense of camaraderie between

themselves and their intended audiences.

 Perrin 4

In contrast, Stites and DeGeneres differ in their ability to establish credibility for themselves

as authors. Stites uses her apparent knowledge of a wide variety of social networking sites to

appeal to ethos. Her tone may be informal, but Stites consistently appears knowledgeable of the

formalities of online social networking sites; in fact, Stites mentions and describes at least fifteen

different social networking sites. Stites even discusses a hierarchy system she created for

deciding which site to use to contact people based on how well she knows them. Because Stites

seems to be so knowledgeable of social networking websites, she puts herself in position from

which she appears to be a credible judge experienced enough to know the true nature of these

sites and the influence they have on one’s life. Therefore, Stites effectively appeals to ethos.

Alternatively, DeGeneres relies upon her career in comedy to establish her credibility as an

author. While her credibility as a comedian may be enforced by the brief biography of her career

placed at the beginning of the article, DeGeneres’ credibility as an author is not. Because of her

history with comedy, DeGeneres’ audience expects to laugh. DeGeneres is humorous, however,

as this humor continues throughout her article, she begins to discredit herself as an author. This

is a failed attempt to apply DeGeneres’ history with comedy as justification of her role as the

author of an argument on technology. Therefore, this is a failed appeal to ethos. Where

DeGeneres falls rhetorically short because her history as a comedian does not give credence to

her argument on technology, Stites succeeds by highlighting her own knowledge of social

networking sites.

Both Stites and DeGeneres use humor to appeal to their audiences, but Stites uses humor in a

much more effective way. Stites utilizes the humor of storytelling as a way to appeal to pathos.

She tells the story of her attendance of a party hosted by Flavorpill, an online social networking

site: “I was sucking down a cigarette with the head of Flavorpill when our cell phones rang at the
 Perrin 5

same time. We flipped them out to see who was contacting us. He turned to me and said

‘Dennis? He’s really got to go someplace new.’ I looked down at my screen and noticed that

Dennis had sent out a Dodgeball message that he was at a bar on the Lower East Side – the

fourth such message that week…I couldn’t believe it. Here we are in person and both in Dennis’s

network but not in each other’s. That almost never happens.” This story is a successful appeal to

pathos because Stites’ audience of New York Times readers will find the story humorous, yet also

see it as an informative example of how social networking sites can help create relationships

outside of the digital world; Stites cleverly ends her article in such a way so as to leave her

readers with that idea in mind. Additionally, Stites uses dry humor to further her emotional

appeal, often playing off public perception of people who, like her, use social networking sites

addictively. At one point Stites says that she prefers “ a world cloaked in virtual intimacy.” She

then defends that statement by saying “besides, eye contact isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and

facial expressions can be so hard to control.” Obviously, Stites is using strong humor to explore

her own situation, but the point she makes here is valid: Stites appreciates virtual intimacy

because it gives her the advantage of being in control. By using humor to convey her argument,

Stites is effectively appealing to pathos. While Stites utilizes dry humor, DeGeneres uses

exaggerated satirical humor to attempt to bolster her argument. Unfortunately for DeGeneres,

however, her appeal becomes too strong and begins to discredit her role as an author and to

overshadow the main points in her argument. One problem with DeGeneres’ appeal is that she

applies this over-the-top sense of satirical humor to very miniscule aspects of technology, such

as the automated sink in public restrooms or GoGurt, the on-the-go yogurt. At one point,

DeGeneres even says microwaves are “from the devil” (588). Yes, the comment is funny, but is

it persuasive? No. Although DeGeneres makes a strong attempt to use humor to bolster her
 Perrin 6

rhetoric, she fails in the end because her exaggerated satirical humor overpowers the central

ideas of her argument; Stites, on the other hand successfully uses humor to appeal to pathos and

to convey the main focus of her article.

One of the strongest aspects of Stites’ argument is its function as an enthymeme, which

serves as an excellent appeal to her intended audience of educated readers. Stites exposes the

information, but her argument is based totally in logic. Nowhere in her article does she explicitly

say that social networking sites are beneficial; Stites presents the information in the construct of

her intended argument in order to impact her audiences’ logic in an indirect way. It is in the

mind of the reader where the real conclusion to Stites’ argument is formulated. In complete

contrast to Stites’ enthymeme is DeGeneres’ failure to appeal to logos. DeGeneres’ argument

lacks factual evidence, outside sources, and an appeal to the logic of her audience. While

DeGeneres’ lack of logos causes her whole argument to fall short, Stites’ ability to indirectly

influence her audience’s logic affirms that Stites’ argument is, rhetorically, much the stronger of

the two.

Although it is apparent that Stites’s argument is much more coherent and powerful than

DeGeneres’s, one may say that because DeGeneres is focused on an audience of “average

people” that her lack of logos and her over-the-top humor are more appealing to her intended

audience. While this may be true in the context of her own book, it is not what They Say/I Say is

looking to publish in their next edition. DeGeneres’ lack of an appeal to logos causes the

rhetorical aspect of the article to flounder, while her exaggerated humor tends to cover up her

key focus in the argument. They Say/I Say highlights rhetoric, and DeGeneres is not focused the

rhetorical aspects of her argument, but rather on making people laugh; therefore DeGeneres’

article does not meet the qualifications of and should not be included in the next edition of They
 Perrin 7

Say/I Say. Alternatively, Stites’ ability to connect with her audience through dry humor and her

bold use of an enthymeme make her argument rhetorically strong. Thus Stites’ “Someone to

Watch Over Me (on a Google Map)” makes an ideal candidate for inclusion in the next edition of

They Say/I Say.

 Perrin 8

Works Cited

DeGeneres, Ellen. “This is How We Live.” Remix: Reading and Composing Culture. Ed.

Catherine G. Latterall. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 588-592. Print.

Stites, Theodora. “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map).” New York Times. New

York Times, 9 July 2006. Web. 26 Aug. 2010.