Running Head: Genre Analysis

Genre Analysis: Video vs. Scholarly Article about the Advancing Technologies of
Prosthetics
Brooks W. Friedman
University of Texas El Paso

GENRE ANALYSIS

The two documents that were analyzed for this assignment were from two
different genres. These documents consisted of a scholarly article and a video. The
article, Exoskeletons and robotic prosthetics: a review of recent developments,
explained the advancements in prosthetics and how there are still more discoveries that
scientist are trying to find to assist those in need. The other document was a video,
titled The Million Dollar Man, made by the people in charge of the Smithsonian
Museum website. The title itself grabs the audiences attention, but the website depicted
a human being comprised entirely of prosthetic appendages and organs. Although the
two documents had one main focus, the overall purpose differed between them.
Differences arose when trying to keep the audience interested in the authors purpose,
the way they presented the information, and how they set their argument.
There are distinct differences between these two documents. One of the main
things that is different between the two documents is the way that they are presented.
One source is a video that contains some background music, accompanied by images
and descriptions of what is being shown. There is a clear picture and description
associated with each part of the video, being thorough in its explanations. The video
has no specific audience, but it rather an interesting video meant to make the human
race think about what the future may have in store. Anyone can watch the video and
learn the same amount because it is simply a short video for entertainment purposes.
As for the second source, the purpose and audience seem to differ slightly. The first
source seems to emphasize a futuristic fantasy of peoples mind, while the article is
more informative and involved with the current. The bulk of this article is information
about the topic, prosthetics, and what doctors have done and what they are doing to

GENRE ANALYSIS

improve these already created things. The author uses complicated wording and
explains each item he discusses well. The audience for this source is more focused on
the people interested in this subject, and those wanting to know what materials are
available now-a-days to those requiring prosthetics. Those who have spent time in this
subject will retain more information because to the average person, there are a lot of
complicated ideas and concepts that they might not understand. To fully understand the
article, a close reading (possibly including re-reading information due to its complexity)
is suggested and will take more time to finish than the video. Both of these articles are
meant to inform the audience of something spectacular, but they approach their
arguments in different fashions.
The logical arguments are both compelling, but seem to be more trusted in the
scholarly article. Although the video does come from Smithsonian.com, a pretty credible
source, the article would seem to have more credibility because it was written by a
scientist with over twenty-five years of experience. The wording and physical evidence
given in the article provides for a more convincing overall argument for the topic. Now,
Mr. Bogue is most likely writing to a much more intelligent audience with the need to be
specific in all of the information given. The videos goal is to show the fascinating
opportunities the future may hold for humans in general, so it is not worded as
eloquently and simply aims to put the audience in a state of awe. Something that relates
to the topic above is the credibility of these sources. The ethos between these sources
is fairly comparable, but as stated before, the person who has twenty-five years of
experience in the science field is more reliable than that of a popular website for new
and interesting information. As for the emotional effectiveness between these two

GENRE ANALYSIS

sources. The scholarly article has some effective points regarding exoskeletons that can
tug at the hearts of the readers. Exoskeletons provide help to those who cannot function
all of their muscles properly. Anything that deals with aid of handicapped or helping
injured veterans will trigger emotional instincts in most people. On the other hand, the
video contains some emotional pathos, but also some pathos towards how you simply
watch the video. The video provides information about the artificial parts for the human
body that will allow it to properly function better than the alternative (failing organs, lack
of organs, etc.). The idea of having a change to survive without a true crucial organ gets
the blood flowing. The video contains background music and sound effects as well. The
sound effects provide an example of what the specific organs would sound like if
working. As for the background music, it has a futuristic tone, put to create a sort of
fantasy feel to the video. The rhetorical arguments in both of these sources causes
thought to determine the true purpose, and to determine how the author is trying to
manipulate the readers mind.
Also, the structure behind the sources can change the way the reader analyzes
the information. Bogues article contains a little more information with some pictures to
support what he is talking about. Now, his motives are to inform the brighter minds of
the technology that people are working on currently in prosthetics. The average person
may need a little more research to determine what everything is that Bogue is talking
about, requiring more time from the article. The pictures seem to be a little pathos
driven but mainly stick to the goal of informing the reader. Besides these pictures, it is
only text and no color included with the text itself, because this article is professional.
This format gives the paper a little bit of a more serious tone and is read differently

GENRE ANALYSIS

because of it. Although these two sources are discussing the same topic, the
Smithsonian has a different way of explaining their information. The Smithsonian keeps
the video to three minutes and thirty seconds long. Since their audience is practically
everybody, the length of the video is enough to explain what they want, and keep the
audience interested all at the same time. Having new information every fifteen seconds,
containing interesting information that could affect the audience in the future, keeps the
audience interested and paying attention. Humans have short attention spans and this
video involves colorful graphics and quick transitioning information to capture the
audiences attention. Again, the audience impacts how the author structures the source.
The sources had two different purposes, in an attempt to reach two different
audiences, making them fairly different as a whole. The scholarly article provided
specific and informative complex information regarding prosthetics and exoskeletons for
those of higher intelligence on the subject. The Smithsonian video was more for an
overall entertainment value and was interesting throughout, still providing information
that was original and easy to retain. The biggest thing about an article is the help the
audience gain information that they wanted to know. The two sources approached this
goal in two different ways, but the video reached the goal easier and with greater
success. The way the information was presented in the video covered just as much
material in a shorter period of time, and the information was much easier to retain than
the facts given in Bogues article. Although the topic of these sources were the same,
purpose, rhetoric, and structure can change the meaning behind all the information.

GENRE ANALYSIS

6
References

Geoff, Brumfiel (September 2013). Explore the Million Dollar Man (Video File).
Retrieved from
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/3play_1/explore-the-milliondollar-man/
Robert Bogue, (2009) "Exoskeletons and robotic prosthetics: a review of recent
developments", Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 36 Iss: 5, pp.421 427. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/01439910910980141#