When you consider the readings for today, think about how genre plays a part in the way the argument is presented--tone, level of exposition (sharing information or assuming the readers have the info), diction, conventions/generic expectations.
Do the texts fulfill your generic expectations? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I looked at todays readings I really tried to be critical of how they were written, who they were written for, and what message exactly were the articles trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting of the three I would have to say was the article published in meatpaper. Novella the urban farmer wasn't preaching or trying to tell people how they should think about meat. She was really only expressing her own views on meat. After reading the article I saw that meatpaper is a publication all about meat. Not against meat but more of a celebration of meat and meat ideas. This publication would obviously have the thought that they could talk about meat on a highly meat educated level, however the article was easy to read and even not being a meat expert I felt that I understood what it was about. This text really fulfilled my generic expectations. It was geared towards its audience, but it was still easy to read if you weren't a "meatie".
On the opposite side of the spectrum there was the SFGate article A carnivores delight... This article was full of wordy phrases and examples that were obviously written for one specific audience. A highly educated audience who are meat conscious and think everyone should follow suit. Yes the piece was a column and the same audience is expected article to article , but his word choice to me was someone high class for the average reader. His writing was much more expressive and image provoking whereas the Urban farming article was sort of concretely simple. This article would fulfill my generic expectations if I was a californian who cared about healthy meat and regularly read his column. But being the ohio-an that I am I really didn't connect to his article.
When I tried to pick apart the Genre of the three articles i saw the Food and Wine Magazine article, "Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat" as the best to play to its audience. The writer first establishes her credibility by recognizing that she herself has put off eating the amount of meat she used to, but even her husband has gone back to it. The audience of Food and Wine Magazine is most likely upper-scale, older and interested in high-end food and probably quite picky in their food choices. This demographic is probably most likely to be interested and even persuaded when informed about these new ex-vegetarians. She provides plenty of evidence from experts on the topic of vegetarianism, making her story more concrete and reputable. Lennon also continues to make parallels between marriage and food, again, appealing to her older, most likely married demographic.
ReplyDeleteAll of the readings met my generic expectations. Each one had a different tone and different purpose. You can almost tell what they are going to be like by the title. “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” is an informative, factual article. Filled with reasons and explanations as to why vegetarians and everyone should eat some kinds of meat. This is right in the title. The title seems to be informative and educational. “A carnivore’s delight poses an ethically meat dilemma” is a wordy and very rambling sort of article. The author uses phrases like “deeper conscience, a bit of a paradox, inside a conundrum, wrapped in a dilemma and grilled over fine mesquite on a sexy little $600 Eva Solo grill”. This author is a columnist so therefore he is reaching out to an audience and fan base that already reads his column. This is why it is a very opinionated piece of literature. The “Well Done” is more of a mixture there are facts and there are opinions but it is done in sort of a joking matter. Like for instance when he writes “It is more constant than sex and-unless you're Bill Clinton-you can share it with more people”. This comedic approach is seen in the title as well.
ReplyDeleteThe National Review article "Well Done" was an interesting depart from most things you would read regarding meat and meat consumption. The article is delivered with a mocking, cynical tone aimed at right wing carnivores, poking fun at the heath and environmentally conscious left. The article is written for people who probably don't know a lot about food, the text takes the time to explain different food movements to the uninformed, such as the Fruitarians. The language is direct, no 5 dollar words here and takes the occasional departure for a joke or cheap shot to keep the audience entertained. The article meets my generic expectations in that it delivers an opinion in a strait forward way. I didn't particularly like the article because it failed to offer me any reason for why I should eat meat other than "it tastes good." The article spent most of it's time making fun of reasons why people choose not to eat meat instead of making a case for why meat might be a good option. As I stated before this article met with my expectations of tone, exposition and diction but failed to provide me with a compelling argument.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the articles did meet my generic expectations. The "Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat" article was very well written and informative. I feel that this was the best one to meet generic expectations because it is very straightforward and informative. Even though there is a specific demographic, this article reaches out to a wider audience without being disloyal to the specific audience it was met for.
ReplyDeleteThe "Well Done" article was a bit more specific to the audience it was intended. It was more of an entertaining piece rather that informative, so reaching out to a wider demographic is harder. I felt that people were more likely to be insulted by this article than in the other ones and that can be harder to get a bigger following.
Jonah Goldberg's article was indeed 'Well Done'. The diction is very broad; being a national magazine it speaks to the average reader and explains some of the more unfamiliar terminology. I particularly liked how it was put in perspective how I envision the whole meat dilemma, "we were meant to eat [meat]," though "...there is a legitimate case to be made that...we eat too much meat". As always, humor is a plus, which Goldberg did subtly using the obvious argument that our oral anatomy is constructed to bite into some juicy steaks. "Well Done" clearly filled my expectations.
ReplyDeleteMorford as a columnist for the SFGate has a very specific audience. The setting he described wasn't familiar to me never being to that part of California. I do agree, that factory farms are bad and that we should be conscious of what is going into our bodies and what exactly is the substance we call meat. Although the article wasn't aimed to a college student in Ohio it was killing to read.
The interview was very interesting I had never heard of 'urban farming' before. There are some very logical arguments made, though personally I wouldn't go as far to raising my own, or in the near future at least. It is a possibility when I will be sitting in my rocking chair in my elderly years drinking a cup of coffee. For now I will be more inclined to purchase meat from local farmer markets as suggested in "Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat," or continue to purchase organic at the grocery.
For the most part my general expectations were met. The article "Why Vegetarian's are Eating Meat," took an interesting approach. I thought it was very informative and easily understood. As for "A carnivore's delight poses an ethically meaty dilemma," I did not enjoy at all. It was very hard to follow. All in all it was pretty painful reading. Having to go back and endure in it a second time was even more painful. With the interview, it was interesting coming from the point of view of an urban farmer. She made a good argument and it was very informative. As for tone, it certainly affects how something is perceived. In "Well Done," I enjoyed the light-heartedness. It was very entertaining and somewhat informative. Being that it was easier the follow and understand, I feel like I got more out of it. Someone else might not find Goldberg's humor to be funny, rather offensive, which would lead to less followers.
ReplyDeleteThese texts did meet my generic expectations for the most part. I really found the article about "farm animals surviving by dying" in the meatpaper reading. I thought that it did a great job explaining this theory. I myself can relate to the woman that was raising her own food. Seeing that this is in a paper that is primarily read by people that already eat meat, the concept was geared more toward the "eat local" theme rather than "you should eat meat". However, when I think of that, I generally do not think of raising livestock in a city. It took "eating local" to a different level, especially when Novella talked about the "factory animals" being "gross" and when she hypothesized that local farm animals will one day take over city allys. If people are wanting to eat local, why not raise their own meat too?
ReplyDeleteThese readings showed a variety of genres even though they were arguing the same points or from the same general region. A carnivore's delight had a much harsher tone than the rest of the articles but i realized it was in the entertainment section. The author uses words that speak directly to the reader but in a way that makes him seem as if he would like the sound of his own voice. Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat seemed the most factual with little opinion but it seemed like it was for an audience who might already be vegetarians. The Meatpaper article i noticed was a paper specifically about meat and the people that like it or not like it. It speaks more to the emotional side of the audience but offers us a look into a day of what Novella Carpenter says could be the future.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the articles were sufficient in meeting my generic expectations. Of the three articles the one about " Why Vegetarian's are Eating Meat" was the one that stood out the most. I liked the idea that some hardcore vegetarians of the past are trying meat. They believed that more naturally fed and cleaner meat is available, so they are willing to give it a try.
ReplyDeleteThe article pertaining to the women who is an urban farmer was a bit different. I think there is a possibility that we could have our own animals to raise and eat, if gas and shipping continue to go up. I did think the lady being interviewed was a bit out their though. The tone of the article was positive in that the animals weren't being farm fed.
I feel that the "Well Done" article showed many aspects as to what past countries eating habit have been. This article filled my expectations because it did a good job of used data to back up its facts. And I liked how it said humans were meant it eat meat. I was able to relate to what the article was saying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1: Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat
ReplyDeleteThis article is very ego-centric. It is all about the author and her husband, and their trials and tribulations with meat and vegetarianism and how they developed their current relationship with meat. She uses the words 'we' and 'I' frequently throughout her article.
This piece bounces back and forth between dialogue from interviews that the author has conducted with other "meat converts" and pieces parts of her and her husbands conversion process.
Generally, this article is geared towards anyone who has an interest in vegetarianism vs. omnivor(ism?). She does not use elaborate language, and briefly explains things that may not be widely understood. For example she let's the reader know that the terms "grass fed" and "pasture raised" mean that the animal was raised without the use of any unnatural foods or hormones. but she also doesn't go into such great depth like she would if she was writing for a totally uninformed audience.
My generic expectations were met for this article. I expected to learn a little bit about how and why meat is good in small quantities and what kind of meat is good and what kind is not. But mostly, I was following a story about a woman and her husband and the people that she met along the way that helped them decide their views and values on meat.
Article 2: The Urban Farmer: Do animals die to live?
I'm going to start out by saying that I was completely fascinated by this article. I actually forwarded it to my very meat conscious mother. Many of the things that the interviewee said were things that i have been trying to explain to my mother for years, and it left me with a lot of food for thought (ha! there's another food cliche!)
anyhow...
I found it refreshing and interesting that this interview didn't have anything to do with whether we should eat meat or not. No one was being pushy with opinions, being preachy or judgmental. It was purely this woman's story (and the turkey's), and her views, lifestyle, and values.
As far as exposition goes, I think that the intro to this interview may require a some knowledge about meat processing. For example i'm not completely sure what "rendering lard on her stove top" or "brain-tanning rabbit pelts" means. But i also think that the idea o this intro is to make the reader say "what the --??" and it's not really necessary for them to know what exactly those things are. The rest of the article however is really straightforward, and any one could easily read it and be intrigued.
My generic expectations were definitely met. The questions were brief and to the point, and her responses really gave you a lot to chew on. It was great because you really got a feel for this woman and what she's all about. The piece felt real; like you were there, listening to her tell you about her backyard farm.
Article 3: A Carnivore's Delight Poses an ethically Meaty Dilemma
Honestly, I only made it through the first few paragraphs of this one. His lavish, flamboyant, freakish, kissed by the sun, gooey, delicious, gluttonous, sexy, fat-laden, hormone-injected diction was way more than I could handle. All that excess distracted from what he was actually writing about.
I'd rather eat "ultra-toxic mystery gunk" than ever read that article again.
Genre to me is a separating factor between two different entities. In this case, those two entities are vegetarianism and meat. The last couple articles we read pertained to these and for the most part were for the eating of meat over the former. I personally believe this they make a valid point in that there are ethical ways to eat meat without having to give up something that can be quite healthy for you in the first place. Genre plays a large factor in that it is a deciding factor to what people eat. If you are vegetarian obviously you eat vegetables and meat for the opposite. These articles gave an interesting point to why someone might want to change genres in order to be more satisfied. This gave reason to why meat is not necessarily a bad thing to eat and if moral reasons are the only deciding factor there are ways to overcome this. I think that it was an attempt to say that a genre doesn’t define a person and is always subject to change if the circumstances are right.
ReplyDeleteThe article about urban farming was most interesting to me. It was nice to read something with an out of the ordinary style as well as out of the ordinary content.
ReplyDeleteThe interview style of writing makes the reader feel like a fly on the wall. It is like listening to a conversation rather than reading the opinion of a writer. You as the reader are getting the information at the same time as the author. There is no well planned out story here. The proceeding question is a reflection of the preceding answer.
In this article the the interviewer is neutral to urban farming. While the interviewee is pro urban farming, she has a take it or leave it attitude. there is no persuasiveness, Novella is simply telling her story.
I think genre plays an important role in all texts. Where I may appreciate the way one article is written, someone else may not, and visa versa, where I may not appreciate the way another article is written, someone else may appreciate it. The article, “The Urban Farmer”, presented in the Meatpaper, did not appeal to me once so ever. After thinking about genre it occurred to me that it is possible that this is just because of the genre that it is written in. This article is written in a rather casual manner. Several terms and phases Novella used disgusted me as a non-meat lover. When she uses the line “I fed him; I cleaned up after him; I picked up and held him; I gave him water. You watch them grow and then it’s time.” This line makes me want to become a vegetarian more than ever. It’s quite clear that this article is not written for someone who meat doesn’t appeal to.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there are articles who do appeal to people who don’t necessarily like meat. The article “A Carnivore’s Delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma”, seems more geared towards another type of genre. The author, Mark Morford, starts right off the bat making beef sound bad by calling it, “freakishly brown heavily processed fat-laden hormone-injected ultratoxic mystery junk.” He continues the article continuously bringing out the bad in meat, but repeating that regardless he still eats it on occasion. As a non-meat lover it is easier for me to relate to this article and to enjoy this genre of writing.
It becomes evident that there are different articles written for different people using different genres. The genre that the author writes in helps to engage his potential audience. After all, people who don’t really care for meat aren’t likely to be reading the Meatpaper. Reading different styles and genres of writing can help to expand knowledge by stepping outside of reading articles by authors who gear their opinions and stories for an audience like you. With this said, the texts do fulfill my generic expectations.
I enjoyed reading "Well Done." I thought the author was entertaining, but not very informative. I don't think you could classify that as an academic text because of his strong opinions, loaded words, and use of humor. He was targeting a more conservative audience, seeing as he writes for the National Review. I could see how he may have offended the progressive audience with his extreme conservative stance on the issue. He used humor to keep the reader entertained, and this kept the reader reading. He tore down PETA, the fruitarians, and the idea of being a vegetarian, and then did not really give reasons to eat meat. Looking back on the article, I was more entertained than informed.
ReplyDelete