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.