Summary: Echols’ article begins by discussing how the medium of radio was effectively used for storytelling, particularly in telling horror stories. She does not immediately offer her thesis in this introduction, but rather gradually builds up to it by introducing key elements of her argument throughout the introduction. One important element she mentions is that radio was about “focusing on the individual listener” (43), particularly by making the audience identify with the characters and feeling as if they are experiencing the events of the story. She then begins to explain how this was done through dialogue and sound effects, such as the noise of exploding bombs (Echols 44). By using the technique of starting broad and zeroing in, Echols
…show more content…
Returning to Echols explicitly stated thesis, she states that the article’s purpose is to answer the question “How did radio create the monster for listeners and how did radio aurally produce horror?” Because this question is specifically posed, the question of whether the article is persuasive hinges on whether she answers this question sufficiently. As mentioned when analyzing the effectiveness of the article, Echols does use evidence well when she includes it, especially so in “The Art of Sound” section. She answers the question of how horror and monsters were created aurally by describing sound effects used in productions of Dracula and “Zero Hour”, such as hammering a melon to simulate the sound of a vampire’s chest being cracked by a stake, and the various sounds and “musical blasts” in “Zero Hour” that “deliver a shock as an attention grabber (Echols 47). This section is persuasive, because it provides an answer to her thesis and ties back into the point in the introduction about drawing the audience into the episode’s story. Even in one section that seems less effective, at least in terms of evidence, there is a well defined explanation of horror and monstrosity, quoted from Obler, who said that, “the most frightening thing in the world [is the] unfamiliar suddenly made familiar” (48). This definition is similar to Freud’s concept of “The Uncanny,” in which something is frightening because it is familiar, but there’s something something slightly off about
Returning to Echols explicitly stated thesis, she states that the article’s purpose is to answer the question “How did radio create the monster for listeners and how did radio aurally produce horror?” Because this question is specifically posed, the question of whether the article is persuasive hinges on whether she answers this question sufficiently. As mentioned when analyzing the effectiveness of the article, Echols does use evidence well when she includes it, especially so in “The Art of Sound” section. She answers the question of how horror and monsters were created aurally by describing sound effects used in productions of Dracula and “Zero Hour”, such as hammering a melon to simulate the sound of a vampire’s chest being cracked by a stake, and the various sounds and “musical blasts” in “Zero Hour” that “deliver a shock as an attention grabber (Echols 47). This section is persuasive, because it provides an answer to her thesis and ties back into the point in the introduction about drawing the audience into the episode’s story. Even in one section that seems less effective, at least in terms of evidence, there is a well defined explanation of horror and monstrosity, quoted from Obler, who said that, “the most frightening thing in the world [is the] unfamiliar suddenly made familiar” (48). This definition is similar to Freud’s concept of “The Uncanny,” in which something is frightening because it is familiar, but there’s something something slightly off about