Assignment 8

Assignment 8

I wasn’t actually all that surprised by my fellow students reactions to Lifelike. We all seemed to formulate the same ideas and opinions about the article. For example, many of us were very confused about her decision to integrate many disturbing quotes into her essay and at the same time, compliment many of the taxidermists for their skillfulness, hard work, and dedication. This made her whole article very difficult to understand. Nobody knew what to think after reading through it. We did not know whether she gained an appreciation for taxidermy or whether she added those disturbing quotes so that her readers’ beliefs would be reconfirmed.  Additionally, she made many other writerly choices that raised a lot of questions. For instance, why did she write about the history of taxidermy, why did she write about the taxidermy site, why did she write about all the different people who take up taxidermy, or why did she make a biblical reference at the end of her essay? All these different writerly choices raised a lot of questions. Her reasons for doing any of this did not seem clear. But once I read Lifelike many times over and over, it finally started to make since. She wrote this article to support and promote taxidermy.

She did include in her essay many quotes that seemed very disturbing, but she only did this because she wanted to give an accurate description of the environment she was in. She also did not want to lose her credibility as an author. The New Yorker audience would probably be a lot less inclined to read her article if they knew she was biased. If her audience wanted a more biased article they would have chosen to read something written by the PETA organization or the NRA organization. But because she seems so impartial, she does not lose her credibility as an author. Despite the fact that she included these quotes, which may at first make her seem impartial, I think she was not being impartial and that she was promoting taxidermy through her writing.

There is one more thing I would like to comment on and that is that she wrote this paper because she simply loves to write. I listened to a speech she once gave to a group of people that is viewable on You Tube and in that speech she said that she loves to write because she loves telling stories and providing her readers with a more in depth look at whatever it is that she is writing about. Although, the internet can provide us with all the information we need to learn about anything, she can offer so much more. She can give us a beautifully written story filled with emotion and feeling, and not just a list of facts.  

Assignment 7

 Assignment 7

Why did Susan Orlean cover the history of taxidermy in her essay?

At first, I was not exactly sure as to why she revealed the history of taxidermy in her essay. But after reading over the content of the essay a little bit more, it became apparent to me. Her reasons for doing this are actually quite simple. She writes about the history of taxidermy to give readers perspective. By knowing the history of taxidermy we can see what the profession was like when it first began, where it is now, and where it is going.

Like most trades, innovations, or original ideas, taxidermy started out small and then it got big. So, big in fact, that it has become a five hundred million dollar business. However, unlike most other professions, taxidermy has always been considered an abnormal profession. In her essay, Orlean writes, “In spite of its scientific value, it was usually regarded as almost a black art, a wholly owned subsidiary of witchcraft and voodoo”.  This isn’t surprising in the least. I’ve talked to a lot of different people about taxidermy and more often than not, people quiver at the thought of people bringing animals back to life, much in the same way kids make stuffed animals at build-a-bear workshops. Additionally, just the idea of stuffing a dead animal does not seem ethical.

On that note, it’s also not surprising that taxidermy was considered a black art when it first started because it was new. I am not that afflicted by taxidermy because I have seen taxidermist work on walls at bars, schools, and peoples’ homes all my life, but for the people that lived a hundred years ago, it was brand new and, because it was new, it was that much more disturbing and gross.

Taxidermy now, it seems, is still considered to be an unethical trade by many, but not all. Now there are magazines, sponsors, and competitions that support the longevity of this trade, which just goes to show how much more it is accepted and respected.

Another reason I believe she wrote about this history of taxidermy is to show readers just how much stitching animals back together has advanced over the ages. In Lifelike, she wrote, “The original taxidermists were upholsterers who tanned the hides of hunting trophies and then plumped them up with rags and cotton, so that they reassumed their original shape and size; those early poses were stiff and simple, and the expressions fairly expressionless.”

Then, she later wrote, “It used to be enough to do what taxidermists call "fish on a stick" displays; now a serious competitor worries about things like flow and negative space and originality.” These quotes from Orlean’s text go to show just how much more effort is put into bringing an animal back to life today than in the past.

One other reason I believe she wrote about this history, is to simply give her audience context. Her readership is more than likely comprised of residents of New York City, considering she writes for The New Yorker. The majority of these people might not know anything about hunting and taxidermy and that is why it was important for her to give some background information. People that have grown up in rural areas might not need the background information because they already know everything there is to know. But the citizens of New York may not.

Why does Susan Orlean not express her personal opinions about taxidermy?

I thought it was very interesting that she wrote her essay without expressing her own opinions. There could be any number of reasons why she did this. With a subject such as this, I expected her to be more biased, more prejudice, or more to the point. It’s really difficult with this essay, to figure out exactly what she expects of her readers or what is at stake for her. Then again, she is a professional. Because, she is a professional, there is a really good chance that she can influence her readers without noticeably coming right out with her personal opinions. That’s what writers do. They appeal to readers emotions and influence them one way or the other with their use of words. People that are smart already realize this and because of this they try not to get too invested in whatever it is that they’re reading. This could be good and bad or neither. It all depends on what the topic is. Sometimes it is good to keep an open mind, sometimes not.

What was really apparent was that Susan Orlean included in her essay a lot conflicting statements. At times, she was writing about how much skill it takes to be a taxidermist, and the next she included in her essay all the grotesque details of what the taxidermist do to make a final product. She was very wishy washy in her writing. I think readers really need to focus on what words she uses to describe taxidermy and the competition. From my perspective, it seems as though, she supports taxidermy. In the end, I think she has a better understand and respect for it.

Maybe that’s all she wants. Maybe all she wants is for her readers to have a better understanding and respect for some aspects of the trade, such as the fact that history can be preserved throughout time because of what one taxidermist has done.