Well...

I am a little bit ashamed of myself. I usually consider myself to have a good sense of humor, sophistication of said humor not withstanding. So it was embarrassing that I found myself lol'ing at a political cartoon...in a text book.

But, when I read the assignment for the night, I felt I may have redeemed myself, because I was actually laughing at something that was of importance. Rather than the opposite...(let's not go there.)

The add on page 24 and the cartoon on page 1 are really not that different in the device used. They are both overly simple. Quick, and to the point. Something pithy for someone to remember, an image to conjure up when confronted with the issue in day to day life.

The cartoon is an example of a visual argument. The message had some serious constraints on it, because the illustrator only had a small amount of space to argue a dauntingly complex problem. Because of this, they had to simplify it enough to be able to fit it in, while still making the point, and wrapping it all up with a little humor. After all, it is a cartoon. So even though many of the types of genres only require a simple argument, this political cartoon had that constraint placed upon it tenfold.

The add on page 24, on the other hand, had a much larger space to work with in comparison to the cartoon. The author of the add still chose to use a simple, concise argument for the main focus, but because it was in the genre of public affairs advocacy advertisements, it had more room to further explain farther down the page.

Personally, I found the cartoon more poignant, but that may only be because I can think of a handful of people that remind me all too much of the guy in the tie dye shirt, rockin' the fresh pair of steps with his hair pulled back.