[ WP ] Recursive Story , a writer writes about a writer writing about a writer .

_An Analysis of Count William Reary ’ s Argument Against Sir Tantey ’ s Conclusions About Interdimensional Beings_ 
 
 In his essay, _An Argument Against Sir Tantey ’ s Conclusions About Interdimensional Beings_, famed author, columnist, and essayist Count William Reary argues that Tantey ’ s conclusions lack supporting scientific evidence, writing that “ unless one can simply will imaginary sentient lifeforms into existence, Sir Tantey ’ s ideas have no basis whatsoever in science, logic, or even common sense. ” Reary scatters effective rhetorical strategies throughout his paper, weaving clever analogies, metaphors, and even emotional appeals within it, providing more than sufficient support to his persuasive argument that Tantey ’ s conclusions are, as he puts it, “ bunk to anyone with half a brain and at least the primitive ability to use tools. ” 
 
 The most central aspect of Reary ’ s means of persuasion are his rather surprising and exaggerated appeals to the emotion of his readers, making use of the pride they have in their identity as human beings, as well as members of the technologically advanced first world nations spangling the planet. He uniquely uses this emotion to support science-based thinking, as in the start of his second paragraph, where he writes that “ we as a species have advanced far, far beyond other animal orgasms ( sic ) on the planet by making use of our incredible ability to identify what is true and what is not through a long-developed thinking called ‘ the scientific method ’, and we should not allow ignorant halfwits like Tantey to taint our vast collection of knowledge with his cult-like beliefs in yellow-coloured, tentacle-infused aliens passing through invisible doors to mess with our banking systems. ” Reary knows that the readers of his newspaper, _The Weekly Reary_, have pride in logic and despise extraordinary claims made without extraordinary evidence, and he uses these attributes to his advantage by using ad hominem attacks against Tantey, calling him an “ ignorant halfwit. ” 
 
 Reary ’ s less critical, less emotional support includes his analogies, such as one where he compares making conclusions about other realities to “ believing that the bats in a cave are white, without even first confirming the existence of the cave. ” His simple and easy-to-understand comparisons are very effective, especially considering the ironically low level of education his readers actually have. More complex analogies wouldn ’ t achieve the effect Reary was going for - indeed, that is not what analogies are for. Analogies are supposed to be a simple, understandable comparison, and Reary knows exactly what he is doing. 
 
 Reary also uses colorful and creative metaphors in order to captivate his readers, painting pictures in their minds with clever imagery and building in their brains an indestructible structure labeled “ we are great. ” His arguably most effective metaphor is when he says that “ the human power of logic and science is a firm foundation upon which we build our cities, our efforts, and our pride. ” He then compares this foundation to Tantey ’ s “ shakey, weak bridge upon which he transports the animalistic natives he calls his ‘ undeniable conclusions. ’ ” These metaphors paint Reary and the rest of humanity as the inhabitants of incredible cities, and Tantey as the lone builder of an insufficient bridge used by tribal people. 
 
 In conclusion, it is certain that Reary makes a compelling argument against Tantey ’ s strange, almost schizophrenic ramblings. It is an argument that is most definitely effective at convincing his simple, easily-persuaded readers that Tantey does indeed make “ shitty conclusions ”, and that maybe he should be locked up in a “ goddamn mental asylum ” so he does not hurt other people. 

