Why does Orlean present her information in such a formal way?
Would it be more effective in more of an informal article?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After reading "Standing By" by David Sedaris, this story seemed to bore most of us as a class. Is this because we didn't really understand the topic, or is it because of the formal way it was presented to us?
I think we are so used to reading these boring, formal writings that we see it as very plain. The fact that they are boring and there isn't much to differentiate them, we lose the purpose of the story itself. I know the first time reading, I zoned out and had to re read often. As did a few of my classmates. I think if Orlean would have presented her information in a different way, she may have been more successful in persuading her readers to reconsider their opinions on taxidermy. Orlean may have presented in this way because it's what she's used to or maybe that's how the newspaper wanted it to be. But maybe if she did something that was a little more risky and different, more people would have been on her side at the end.
If Orlean would have been a little more informal, played with her words a little more and cut out unnecessary things. The story would have been more effective for me. The story dragged on and seemed as though it would never end because she put so many things in it. I zoned out multiple times and didn't understand what I just read because it bored me. However, I think that if she made it shorter and more to the point, she might have actually gotten my attention. Needless to say, I think that if the article was more informal, her overall purpose would have been more effective.
What do you think??
Ok, you're getting closer to what you'd want to be different. But I still don't have a clear idea of what would engage you. What do you mean by "played with her words a little more"? What was unnecessary? What "point" does she need to get to more quickly?
ReplyDeleteSomething else that surprises me is that you wanted this to be shorter. At something like six pages, it's not long at all. Most magazine spreads are that length, right?
I am in complete agreement with you as far as this article being very boring. Lifelike is kind of like a horse tranquilizer. It put me right to sleep. And I think it would not have been so boring had it been a little less formal. Although, maybe she wrote this article the way she did because she did not want to lose her credibility. If she would have said that taxidermy is good or bad from the start, she would have risked losing her credibility. If she loses her credibility, less and less people are going to want to read her articles. Because she wrote Lifelike the way she did, readers are given the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they agree or disagree with taxidermy. Nonetheless, she is a professional journalist, and journalists write to convince. And that's probably why she included in her essay all the grotesque details about the process of taxidermy as well as complimented the taxidermist on their skill. She does this very delicately.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought that I have is that she wrote this essay the way she did because her readership includes educated, urban people who probably know nothing about taxidermy and that is why she was so informative. That's why she wrote about the history, the website, the magazines, the sponsors, and everything else that has to do with taxidermy. Furthermore, her readership is probably used to the way she writes.
On a final note, I believe that people can begin to better appreciate and understand a culture when they know all the details and they fully immerse themselves in that culture. And that is what she did. She fully immersed herself in the taxidermy world. If she didn't go into this world with an open mind, she would have risked losing the opportunity to appreciate or at least understand what the people she met with have to offer. And maybe that's why she is very formal in her writing. She wanted to give her readers all the facts, so they too can have a better understanding and appreciation for taxidermy. This is similar to how anthropologists approach their field: they try not to insert their own judgments, and focus instead on observing different cultures. By taking this approach, she is able to help her readers appreciate the good things about taxidermy, even though the “culture” of taxidermy is very different from the culture of her audience.
I really enjoyed reading your interpretation of Lifelike. The design of your blog is always well done.