Assignment 6: Choices

Assignment 6: Choices

               There are a number of writer choices that are really self-evident in this essay. For example, she decided that her essay would revolve around the 2003 World Taxidermy Competition; she decided to talk about the history of taxidermy, a taxidermy website, how taxidermy is another form of art that contestants in the competition take very seriously, as well as the diversity of people who take up this trade.

               I believe she decided that the competition would be the backdrop of her story because the competition allowed her to meet a wide variety of people from all different walks of life that take up taxidermy as a hobby or as a job. In addition, she was able to see the best of the best dead animals come to life at this every other year competition. The competition was really the best way for her to immerse herself into this culture and take advantage of all the resources that were at her disposal.

               Orleans also talked about the history of taxidermy. I believe this is essential to every piece of literature that is like this article. By giving her followers some background information, she is allowing the readers to see where the trade has been, where it is now, and where it may end up in the future. Knowing the history, allows us as the readers to see the progression of taxidermy throughout time. It allows us to see that taxidermy used to be considered a black art and now it is a widely accepted, multimillion dollar business, which many companies, museums, and hunters take advantage of.

               Talking about the website was also an essential writer choice that Susan Orleans decided to take advantage of. There are two reasons I think she decided to talk about the website. For starters, I think she quoted some of the post from the blog in her essay because those quotes show how the taxidermist think putting an animal’s skin over a mannequin is completely normal.  She also wanted to show her readers how taxidermists interact with one another.  Secondly, I think she brought up the website, so her readers will go and look it up themselves, which will hopefully aid her readers in making up their own opinions about how they feel about the trade.

               One other writer choice that I’d like to talk about is how Susan Orlean decided to include in her essay the desire every taxidermist has to make everything perfect.  In her essay, she writes, “The taxidermists take the competition very seriously.” Then she goes into detail listing all the different lengths taxidermists go through to make a complete master piece.

               Overall, I think immersing herself in this culture by going to the World competition was the best decision she could have made. She could have gone to any local taxidermists and wrote about his or her experiences, but instead she decided to go to this competition, which allowed her to learn what taxidermy is all about on a global level.

Assignment 6

Assignment 6

               Susan Orlean authored Lifelike from an open minded, nondiscriminatory, unprejudiced perspective. I believe she did this out of respect to the people that took the time to talk to her. I also believe she wrote this essay the way she did because if she had not been impartial, less people would feel inclined to want to read it. The only people that would want to read this essay would probably the people that agree with her opinions or people that want to dispute or discredit anything she has to say. In addition, I feel she wrote this essay from a nonbiased perspective because as a journalist staff writer for the New Yorker she realizes she can appeal to a greater demographic of people by being impartial. This article was published in New York; a city in which the majority of people probably would not otherwise be exposed to this trade if it was not for this article.  By not leaning one way or the other in her writing, she allows her readership to form their own opinions about the trade. Put simply, she wrote this article in a non-editorial, informative way, so that her readers could learn a great deal about something they may not know about unless they once lived in a rural area and so they can form their own opinions about the subject at hand.

               The reason I say she wrote this essay from a nonbiased perspective is because she herself compliments some of the taxidermist on their work and because everyone she interviews has something positive to say about the trade, but she also quotes the taxidermist saying some things that are not so pleasing to hear.

For example, she says, “I said that his bobcat was beautiful, and that even the icicles on the piece looked completely real.” She said this to a man that was a contestant in the World Taxidermy Championship competition. Now if this was the only thing she said in her essay, readers might perceive Orleans as an impartial author. However, with every positive thing that is said in this essay, there is also something that tips the scale in the other direction so to say.  Specifically there was the man that stitched the two black bears together, the taxidermist that freeze animal skin in their freezers, as well as the person who suggested he or she would make a mount out of a stillborn. She would not have quoted the contestants saying these things if it was not for the fact that she were trying to be neutral.  

Another example of this is when she quotes a taxidermist saying he or she loves deer and that they’re his or hers babies. She says, “Taxidermists seem to make little distinction between loving animals that are alive and loving ones that are not. ‘I love deer,’ one of the champions in the whitetail division said to me. ‘They’re my babies’”.

Now, as far as where she builds, or loses her ethos, I think she gained her ethos by actually traveling to Springfield, Illinois and attending the competition. This gives her credibility because she didn’t just talk over the phone or instant message with the contestants, she witnessed everything first hand. I think she lost her credibility by being so detached and not expressing her own opinions. If it wasn’t for the fact that I googled her, I would not have known who she was. I think she would have been more credible in her essay, if she gave a better insight into who she is. If her readers knew that she has been a writer for The New Yorker since 1992, and that she has also written for such publications as Vogue, Rolling Stone, Esquire, and Outside, people would be more inclined to hear what she has to say. Then again, maybe she does in fact want her readers to keep an open mind when reading Lifelike, just like I said before.

 

Assignment 5

 

Assignment 5

               Susan Orlean composed this article for The New Yorker to illustrate a taxidermist’s life and to show the world the culture that makes up this society of people that love to bring dead animals back to life. Or perhaps she wrote this article because she wanted to humanize this trade, which for so many people is considered to be awful, evil, and disgusting. It does seem that way, because she doesn’t seem to discriminate against the people she met. Rather, it seems as though she came to favor and admire the taxidermist.

               I believe she wants her readers to keep an open mind when reading this article.  An open mind that will lead her readers to favor the taxidermist trade that is. If she had a different agenda, her approach would have been a lot different. She would have used select words like immoral, awful, cruel, and disgusting. But that’s just it, she doesn’t use those words.

               On the other hand, I do not believe she was too impartial. At times, it seemed more like an informative article than an editorial. And I think that is why I was really not all that excited about reading it. I have mixed feelings on the topic and much of what she had to say was not going to convince me one way or the other. Also, I felt like there wasn’t any rising action, climax, falling action, or resolution to her piece, which made it kind of boring to read. At times, I felt like I was just reading a transcript or a Wikipedia article. I, however, do believe that there are or will be some who read this article and will want to dispute or debate the morality and facts surrounding this article. I think she expects that.

               I obviously do not think she wanted me to be bored. But, I don’t think she would be surprised if I told her that is how I felt when I read this article. She herself said, “In the seminars, the atmosphere was as sober and exacting as a tax law colloquium.” That’s pretty much how I felt about this article. On a final note, I believe she wants her readers to dwell on the topic and to have an opinion. Or possibly she wants her readers to get all the facts before making any strong opinions one way or the other.

Questions for class

Do you feel any different about the sport of hunting or taxidermy now that you have read this article?

How did you feel when reading this article?

Do you think Susan Orlean had a personal agenda?

Do you want to make a dead animal come back to life now?

Do you think this was a good article to have published in The New Yorker?

Standing By CP

 

Standing By CP

               David Sedaris authored Standing By in an attempt to persuade people to change how they think and behave. That is the reason he wrote this story. He wants his readers and others to not be so judgmental. We, for whatever reason are judgmental people. We have the tendency to judge others in spite of the fact that we may not know anything personal about the people we judge. We do it everywhere we go; whether it’s waiting in line at the bank, in the grocery store, sitting in traffic, or sitting in class, we do it all the time. Maybe it’s because we live in a capitalist society where we are rewarded on being better than everyone else. Maybe we do it because it’s a biological instinct that we just have no control over. Or maybe we judge others on preconceived stereotypes, because we feel better about ourselves when we do. Whatever the reason, David Sedaris makes this tendency the backbone of his short story Standing By. He makes this the controlling purpose of his story because he no longer wants people to think this way. He wants people to judge themselves before they think about judging others, because in his eyes, we are equal. It’s not a bad idea. It’s certainly the direction our country is heading in, which I believe is for the best.

Reflecting on Revision

Reflecting on Revision

What I found most intriguing in Ms. Brown’s interpretive essay was her individual perspective or approach to David Sedaris’s story and more specifically his purpose. Going into this assignment, I was not that excited about reading an interpretive essay about a story I have already read many times over and have written about myself, but her unique writing style made her essay very fun to read.  

Ms. Brown and I both express similar ideas in our own essays, but our style of writing is very different. Simply put, she wrote her essay very well. I like her spin on what she feels David Sedaris’s purpose is. Moreover, like me, she wrote about how people have a tendency to sometimes be judgmental.

Ms. Brown wrote this in her essay: Sedaris’ comedic anthropological approach to tackling situations that pertain to judgments passed on others not only touched on physical appearance, but of political ideology as well. He showed that it is as if there is a code within our DNA that makes humans aggressive towards others, but in a passive sort of way. Using an airport as the main location of the article was perfect in capturing the interactions of people and how airline passengers react to certain situations. It is no surprise that in a port that resembles a bee hive of people from all different backgrounds, there is conflict and criticism of others. Sedaris was able to bring up the question of whether it is the situations that drive us or ourselves mixed in with one another; as if our own vulnerability in a place that has people opposite of us is what creates the chaos we find ourselves in.

I love her choice of words in describing what was at stake for David Sedaris. She used the words comedic, anthropological, and DNA. I think these are all good choice words to use. I also like how she referred to the airport as being a bee hive of people. That’s a really good way of describing what an airport can be like and keeps me as the reader entertained and wanting to read more.

Ms. Brown touched a little bit on how David Sedaris noticed the aggression of some of the people around him.  I could have shed a little bit of light on that. There are a few people in this story that exhibit some aggressive behavior. For example, there is the man who said he should have punched the airline employee or there is the man with the mustache who suggested that maybe the government should be overthrown by force. She used the first as an example in her essay. I actually think bringing that up was a good idea because there is a pattern of aggressive behavior throughout the story.

 In all, I really enjoyed reading Ms. Browns paper. Reading her paper has encouraged me to make mine even better. I want mine to be as entertaining as hers. I do believe I wrote my essay well, but there is always room for improvement.

My methodology in writing my paper was simple. I did what I usually do and put together an outline. I really think that’s the best place to start when writing a paper. You start with an idea and give examples to support the idea in the main body of the essay. The objective of this essay was to write my interpretation of David Sedaris’s story Standing By.   I think I did a good job of interpreting his story and used many examples. What I need to do to improve my essay is to be less detached. It is in fact, an interpretive essay, my interpretive essay and therefore I should be less detached. I think this is really important because if I give my readers a sense of who I am as a person and tell the readers what it is that is at stake for me, my readers will be more inclined to want to read my paper.

One thing I’d like to add to my essay is my interpretation of what David Sedaris meant by the airport being a forum for our true hateful selves. He said this: We’re forever blaming the airline industry for turning us into monsters; it’s the fault of the ticket agents, the baggage handlers, the slowpokes at the newsstands and the fast food restaurants. But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport’s just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?

I already elaborated a little bit on what I thought this meant in my essay, but I want to add one more thought. I want to expand on that idea and talk about how social media networks may be similar to this airport setting. Additionally, social media networks, like Facebook may be another forum to show the world who we truly are.

Many of my acquaintances and friends on Facebook were very forward in expressing their political views around election time; some, more aggressively than others. This I think is a good example of how people feel more comfortable being themselves in different settings. Social media networks and the airport are the open doors to showing our true hateful selves.  

 

 

 

Assignment 4: Choices

Assignment 4: Choices

Sedaris decided to write this story because he wanted to leave his imprint on the world. And what better way is there for an author to leave an imprint on the world than to write a story that will change lives? I think a lot of people want to make a difference in this world and this was his way of doing it. Additionally, Sedaris decided that an airport was going to be the stage for his story because an airport is a good representation of how diverse our society is. Also, the characters he decided to write about are probably very similar to people we have seen or interacted with in very similar circumstances. By introducing these characters, he was able to capture our attention and keep us reading until the end. If he would have written about characters we in no way could have related to, we probably would not have been as interested in the story.

Again, Sedaris possibly chose to write this story because he wanted to entertain, get recognition, he wanted to make a difference, or he wants us, as the readers to think twice before opening our mouths. He’s kind of a hypocrite in this story and he probably expected us as the readers to pick up on that. He probably wanted us to realize that we ourselves might just be hypocrites too. Not that everyone is. But, maybe he’s not trying to reach out to those people. Maybe he’s reaching out to the people who are hypocrites whom judge other people, before judging themselves. That’s just something to think about.

In conclusion, I think he published his story in a magazine because younger people read magazines and he expects the younger people in society to be the voices for tomorrow. And by that, I mean he expects his readers to promote social change, or at least for his readers to just be a little less judgmental.

Assignment 4

I honestly think that one of the primary reasons he wrote this story is to make people think about their own behavior, attitudes, and judgments toward other people in society. Moreover, I think he wants people to do some self-reflecting. Throughout this story, we as the readers are introduced to all these different characters that hold judgments towards different people in society. Sedaris also does this. For example, Sedaris says, “Stevie Wonder wore his hair like that in the late seventies, but he’s black. And blind. Then, too, Stevie Wonder didn’t have acne on his neck, and wear baggy denim shorts that fell midway between his knees and his ankles. Topping it off was the kid’s T-shirt. I couldn’t see the front of it, but printed in large letters across the back were the words “Freaky MothaFucka” (Sedaris 276). This is just one example. Throughout the whole story, Sedaris makes judgments about the young parents, the elderly woman and her grandchildren, and about the two Republicans that stood behind him in line. I think this story supports the idea that people stereotype people based on their race, creed, religion, and even their clothing attire. And that is why I think he uses the airport to approach this subject. Because, the airport more than any other place in society truly shows how diverse our society is.

The timing of this story is also significant. It’s in this time period. It’s in this time period that an African American man has been elected to President twice, a time in which men and women in the military can be open about their sexuality, a time in which gay people can get married in certain states, a time in which women can now fight in combat. In this day in age, specifically in these last couple of years, there has been a lot of social change. The timing of this story is significant because Sedaris wants his readers to think about these topics. He wants his readers to dwell on how they or we perceive the world and the people in it. Perhaps, he wants his readers to change the way they think and be less judgmental.

I believe he chose to publish his story in a magazine because his target audience is anyone between the ages of eighteen and thirty five give or take a few years. I’m just guessing. His target audience is us. We are the ones who read magazine articles and more often than not it’s elderly people that read newspapers. Everyone else uses the internet or reads magazine articles. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that I will use the newspaper to clean the windows of my house before using it to get updated on current events. He is not looking for more elderly people to change the world. He is looking to us to do that. He is looking to us to change the way people in society think.

Works Cited

Sedaris, David. "Standing By." First Year Composition Reader. Boston: Pearson, 2011. 275-277. Print.