This article will compare and contrast two articles whose main theme is technology and the effects it has on its users. The two articles in question are, ‘Attached to technology and paying a price’ by Matt Richtel, and ‘the shallows: what the internet is doing to your brain’ by Nicholas Carr. The essay will base its comparison of articles on a number of elements. The first element to be looked at in this comparison is the title of the articles, and whether the articles reflect the content of the rest of the article. The second element has to do with whether the titles have the ability to grab the attention of the readers. Next, the article will examine the topic sentence and deduce whether it is present and appropriately used. Then, the essay will shift its focus to the opening paragraph and find out whether it gives the reader a clear notion of what the contents of the essay are.
Other elements upon which the comparison will be based on include the introduction of the articles and the writing manner of the writers. The essay will find out whether the two authors of the articles use an interesting or an original way to grasp the interest of the readers from the beginning, and then find out whether the introduction of the articles indicate or show the way the paper is organized. Finally, the essay will deduce whether the introductions of the both articles mention both texts in question, including the authors’ names and the article’s titles.
The themes of the two essays are technology, especially media, and how these shape the lives of the users. The two essays have tittles that accurately reflect the contents of the articles. However, the essay by Matt Richtel is the best defined by its title, ‘attached to technology and paying a price.’ The reason behind this conclusion is that the author designed a title that summarizes the contents of the whole article in one title sentence. The title tells of how users of the Internet and other forms of communication technology are attached to these technologies and how these users are paying a huge price for their choices. He gives an example of a user who has become ‘connected to the hip’ with technology, and how he is paying for this choice.
The user says that he forgets and misses things like dinner plans and he even has trouble giving his family attention. His wife has even noticed and complains that her husband ‘seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment’ (Ritchtel 1). This short excerpt and examples from the article show how the author of the article chose a heading that mirrors the article’s contents. The article gives examples of people attached to technology and the implications of this connection on the lives of users, and the title reflects this content perfectly.
On the other hand, the second article title by Nicholas Carr does not quite reflect the contents of the paper. Actually, after perusing the contents of the paper and looking at the title, one can be mislead that title of the paper is misplaced with the wrong content. The content s of the article include such subtitles as ‘the watchdog and the thief’, ‘Hal and me’, ‘a digression’, ‘on what the brain thinks about when it thinks about itself’ and so on. By simply looking at these subtitles and looking at the main title of the article, one can think that title and the content do not fit with each other, or even think that the subtitles and the main title do not belong together.
However, upon deeper reading of the contents of the paper, the connection and fit is found. However, this connection is only realized after digging deeper into the contents of the essay. Further investigation brings the one’s attention to such content as, ‘our focus on a medium’s content can blind is to these deep effects. We are too busy being dazzled or disturbed by the programming to notice what is going on inside our heads’ (Carr 9). This is one of the first reflections of the title sentence in the article, nine pages down the line. The author of this article should have edited his article so that it reflects the contents of his article sooner, or edit it in such a way that the content of the paper rises above the novel techniques he uses to make his point. However, the title still reflects the article’s contents, but in a more complicated manner.
Another element of comparison is whether the titles of the article grab the attention of the readers. The title of the article by Carr is the one I find to be more attention- grabbing than the title of the article by Richtel. Carr’s title is, ‘The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to Our Brains’. This title in a way has a way of grabbing one’s attention. The use of the word ‘Shallows’ is exceedingly captivating especially when one is describing the effects of something. The word ‘shallows’ makes the title of this essay more interesting as it makes one yearn to examine more and discover what these shallows are the Internet is likely to shove someone into. The other title is also not as bad. It is simple and straightforward and anyone seeking information about technology and the effects its likely to impose on users is likely to find it interesting and captivating. However, between the two titles, an individual perusing a magazine or surfing the Internet with no particular interest in the theme, the title by Carr is likely to grab the reader’s attention more than the title by Richtel.
The article, ‘attached to technology and paying a price’ has more clear topic sentence at its beginning when compared to the article, ‘ The shallows: what the internet is doing to our brains’. The first article has a clear sentence topic because its first sentence gives the reader some idea of what the article’s contents. The sentence tells the reader why the subject of the article decided to become attached to technology. The other article, however, does not include a clear topic sentence because its first sentence is irrelevant to the theme of the article. Just as well, the opening paragraph of the article by Richtel tells the reader about what the essay is about. The article by Carr, however, uses an opening paragraph that confuses the reader as to what the contents of the paper are.
The both articles make use of interesting and novel ways to tell their stories. Carr, for instance, uses symbolism, imagery and other grammatical tools to make his story interesting. The subtitles used in the paper are excellent examples of these tools and techniques. The way he tells his story by using examples like The Beetles also is interesting. Richtel also makes use of examples of individuals who make technology their priority and the effects they experience, as a result, to make his story more relevant.
The introductions of the two papers do not give any insights to the organization of the paper. The both authors begin with topic sentences and paragraphs that give more insight to the paper’s contents than to its organization. They also do not mention the titles and the names of the authors and texts in question in the introductions.
Overall, the two articles are expressed in distinct manners to deliver meaning and support to the titles of the articles, and the subject matter of the authors.
Carr, Nicholas. ‘The Shallows: what the Internet is doing to Our Brains.’ Web. 8 February 2012.
Richtel, Matt. ‘Attached to Technology and Paying a Price.’ The New York Times. Web. 8 February 2012.