Carefully read the article posted to the website. What is your opinion of this piece? Using the same criteria you must meet for your project three, does “Making. . .” meet those crtera? For whom is it written? What is its purpose? What is the writer’s position vis-a-vis Serial killers? Is it a well-focused and executed argument about what molds serial killers into their final form? Does the author have Kairos/Authority? What appeals are used: logic, authority, emotion? Is it an effective piece of argumentation or simply “thriller-chiller” entertainment? 200 words please, and respond to your peers no later than 6 pm this evening Monday 6/21.
Advertisement
The audience is people who are unfamiliar with the topic. This is made clear by the thoroughness of each possible cause the author discusses; the author speaks as thought his audience is ignorant of the topic and provides extensive information from credible sources. However, the author doesn’t have a position, besides that serial killing is bad. The author simply discusses the causes of what makes a serial killer. It is because of this that leads me to conclude that the author’s purpose was entirely informative. All in all, it is a well-focused argument that effectively utilizes all of the rhetorical strategies. The author establishes kairos by tying in opinions of credible scientists and researchers into his argument; he uses credible sources to bolster his own. He also discusses multiple arguments addressing what makes a serial killer. In the first section, he talks about the home life of most serial killers, mentioning the prevalence of violence in the media, at home, and the instability of the home life. This also appeals to emotion. In the second part, he uses logic and approaches his topic in a more scientific manner. In this section, he gives scientific explanations why some people are more prone to violence than others. Finally, he uses appeal to authority when he sums up his argument at the end by quoting Ted Bundy, a notorious serial killer. In the end, the author poses the question that perhaps we will never know what causes someone to be a serial killer, but we can all agree that they are sick in the head. Ted Bundy says, “Most serial killers are people who kill for the pure pleasure of killing and can not be rehabilitated. Some of the killers themselves would even say so.”
Comment by Sami Kaldawi — 06/21/2010 @ 12:48 pm
But is it a causal analysis? Even quoting Bundy is just anecdotal “evidence”. Where are the causal linkages? There is no evidence of a biological or “psychological” nature that demonstrates a proof of those processes that manufacture a serial killer in that paper, are there? As the author herself admits at the end of her rehashing of pop culture’s view of sociopathy. So is this informative or simple entertainment? It’s up to you. . . .
Comment by syndeeann — 06/21/2010 @ 1:05 pm
I honestly wouldn’t say its a causal analysis. I think it is the begining of one. While I think the author does a good job of supporting the causes she thinks makes a serial killer, there is alot left out. That is why I think this is more entertainment than anything else. She never takes a stand. The information is presented, an authorty is given that supports her, but nothing more is offered. If this was supposed to be a persuasive paper, say that serial killers can’t be fixed so should get the death penalty, there would be some argument about what she wants us to do. I think if this was supposed to be informative, the focus should be tighten more. She touches on what she beleives are several causes of serial killers, but doesnt go in depth enough to truely inform the reader. So my thought is this is supposed to entertain more than anything else.
Comment by ceilan mcdonald — 06/21/2010 @ 2:48 pm
I think it could be a little bit of both. She could have written this for it to be both entertaining and informative. She does include a lot of facts on how some people are more likely to be a serial killer than others and where it all begins. However, just because all of the causes are not listed doesn’t automatically make it just for entertainment. But I do understand what you are trying to say completely.
Comment by Imari Murray — 06/21/2010 @ 3:34 pm
I don’t think its really causal, because the author doesn’t come up with a conclusion. He simply sums up the possible causes and then leaves it up to the reader. For this reason, it seems as though it is both an informative and entertaining article. It broadly covers the possible causes and doesn’t offer more than that.
Comment by Sami Kaldawi — 06/21/2010 @ 3:46 pm
This is written to better the knowledge of people on serial killers. However the audience isn’t really verified in the essay, so I take it the essay is directed to people that aren’t aware of the true meaning of serial killers and their actions. The purpose is to give more detail into why serial killers are the way that they are. In the essay she mentions physical traits to what most of the serial killers would look like but there isn’t a limit to it. The author doesn’t really have a position on serial killers besides making it really obvious that serial killing is bad. She gives many reasons to why they become how they are. She inputs many different credible resources that back up her reasoning. It is a well focused on the topic and executes the argument very well. I feel she used more of a logic appeal because she is informing her audience on what molds a serial killer. She then uses an emotion appeal when she is describing the unstable homes they are raised in. She quotes a well-known serial killer Ted Bundy in the last parts of the essay, which basically states that a serial killer proceeds through with the killings because they find pleasure in it. His quote could be considered as evidence as well because he is a serial killer himself.
I feel that this essay is more of an informative one than an entertaining one.
Comment by Imari Murray — 06/21/2010 @ 1:42 pm
To me this article seems very thriller orientated. When reading it, it becomes obvious the audience is the general public. There are many arguments that could be made about serial killers. They should be locked up for their whole lives, they can not be cured so should get the death penalty, they should be have psychiatric treatment, are some examples. While the author touches on some of these, no solid argument is made. Instead of making an argument or proposal for action, its more that the author puts out some information then goes “So, what do you think?” To me it come across as more of an entertaining piece then anything else, since no solid arguments were made.
The evidence for what may cause a serial killer was solid. The author uses some graphic language to draw on peoples emotions. Then has logical causes, backed up by authoritative sources. While it has solid arguments for what may cause a serial killer, that is all it does. There is no argument that one cause is the main cause. There is no proposal to try to solve the problem of serial killers. The only proposal I saw was at the end. While the author lists some possible causes, it is stated that we cant say for sure why people become serial killers, or killers at all. So we need to dig deeper and figure it out. Well this is something everyone knows and can agree on. Because the author doesn’t take a real stand, besides serial killers are bad, I believe this was written to a broad range of people, and the author, or maybe publisher, doesn’t want to take a stand that could potentially offend, or cause a disagreement with the reader. As such, while the arguments of the causes are good, I feel there really isn’t any point in reading this.
Comment by ceilan mcdonald — 06/21/2010 @ 2:33 pm
I agree, it seems more informative. The author doesn’t take a stand, rather just outlines all the possible causes of serial killing. It doesn’t seem like an argument at all, but just an informative essay with no opinion from the author other than “serial killers are bad.”
Comment by Sami Kaldawi — 06/21/2010 @ 3:49 pm
I agree that from a proposal stand point the paper was weak. The writer was informative through case studies and scientific information. However, there was no call to action.
Comment by Eric Storey — 06/21/2010 @ 4:50 pm
So.. . how solid could the evidence be if you are equivocating by saying “may cause”? The nature of instant gratification through media has blurred the lines so much between fantasy and reality that the public will believe anything because it is “possible” and test the credibility of almost nothing. As Orwell pointed out in “Homage to Catalonia” Art (entertainment) is propaganda. The doxa that it’s true if you say so, repeated often enough, weakens our ability to know the world, make decisions and encourages the fantasy of every child growing up to be a rock god and a cinematic meteor across the digital, hexed, LCD screen of the virtual age. Anecdote is not data, it’s just a story, a dream, a fantasy.
But back to the evidence, if the evidence can be trusted, then the exact same environment would produce masses of psychopathic murderers, yet serial killers with siblings don’t end up competing with them for the most kills, some, most, many of those siblings are perfectly normal, if not excellent, law-abiding citizens. The evidence provided is post-hoc, made-up after the fact and therefore pure lights-out, horror stories to scare the children. Bah!
Comment by syndeeann — 06/21/2010 @ 5:17 pm
The article “What Makes a Serial Killer” is more informative then thriller entertainment. The audience is the general public, as it talks about what makes a killer. She gives very good information explaining the traits of a serial killer. As she uses professional researchers, they explain what the factors are that produce a killer. Logic is used to explain as scientists have research done to enlighten thinking patterns. Researching on selective inbreeding mice where they study the front temporal lobe. Surgically altering the lobe causes several personality traits to be lost, as the procedure is discontinued. Shedding light on logical reasoning of why a serial killer gains pleasure from torturing victims is yet to be discovered. She explains the emotional patterns by giving details of the life style of serial killers. Such details as the growing environment, children being exposed to violets at an early age. Throughout the paper she does not take a stand, as she just explains a serial killer. There are no listing actions of what to do with serial killers. By quoting Ted Bundy, serial killers are not psychotic. As crazy people don’t admit they are crazy. Which leaves the readers pondering why do they gain pleasure from killing?
Comment by Raymond Paul — 06/21/2010 @ 3:54 pm
How these factors cause one to be a serial killer is never discussed, though. The author himself admits that, for example, alcoholism may be just a result of another factor causing someone to be a serial killer, which is much more plausible (if any one of us kept drinking and drinking, none of us would probably become a serial killer). Though I agree with you that the piece does involve some informative discussions, the actual question is never answered.
Comment by David Choi — 06/21/2010 @ 5:11 pm
You wont be a very sucessful serial killer if are so drunk you cant stand up.
Comment by ceilan mcdonald — 06/21/2010 @ 5:28 pm
The writer has the audience of those who are wanting to discover what creates a serial killer. The purpose of the piece is to examine past cases to reach a conclusion on what caused this deathly, deviant behavior.
The writer takes the position that exposer to violence and an unstable home life as a child may trigger violent behvior. However, the root of the issue is mental illness. The writer reports that there was an increase in serial killer murders during the 1960′s when many in mental hospitals were released based on a set of certain criteria.
The writer is well focused and takes the reader on a logical progression of thought. Authority on the position is credible based on the studys of past cases concerning serial killers, the examination of scientific studies of external and internal influences, and reviews of psychological evaluations.
The writer uses the appeal of logic to bring forth the conclusion that the stem of the problem is mental health. There is no room to debate that anyone who is capable of being a serial killer is not mentally stable.
Comment by Eric Storey — 06/21/2010 @ 4:47 pm
My first impression of the piece is that it is attempting to tackle a very difficult question—“what makes a serial killer?” Unlike the topics we are choosing for our projects, this is incredibly broad in scope. To try and find the reason why people who share a trait became that way…countless factors would have to be studied. This makes it very difficult to make a well-focused causal argument.
That said, it makes for a pretty interesting read, but nothing more. The author discusses a few traits that may possibly correlate to one being a serial killer to the audience. The examination of these traits, such as gender, alcoholism, genetics, and mental illness, includes data that comes from scientific sources and strengthens the author’s credibility, but the author fails to discuss how these factors may have caused the killers to become who they were or are. These traits also cannot apply to all serial killers, limiting focus of the argument. As a result, the piece is not a causal analysis.
The author does admit all this though, stating that “we may never know what causes a serial killer to exact his revenge on an unsuspecting society.” He states that serial killers are terrible and we need to eventually figure out what is causing the problem. The discussion is deemed inconclusive and the author does not take a position on the topic. As the audience is those who may be interested in the topic but do not know much about it, they can be sucked in to thinking the piece is a causal analysis. The heavy use of emotional appeal (scaring the audience: “…which may lead to irrational feelings of powerlessness that are brought under control only when the killer proves he has ultimate power to control life and death”) and the weak causal examination makes the piece merely a form of entertainment.
Comment by David Choi — 06/21/2010 @ 5:07 pm