The first thing I noticed about the article in Mother Jones by Julia Whitty was that it didn't seem to follow any of the narrative lines described by Blundell in our reading for this week. I suppose that the entire story follows a common theme - that of the looming possibility of a mass extinction - but many of the topics and the flow of time in the narrative weren't well planned. I didn't like how the mountainous area near the U.S.-Mexico border was brought up at the beginning and then again after the discussion of the deep sea divers. This seemed disjointed to me and I was constantly having to stop and assess where I should orient myself. I think this piece could have benefited from Blundell's advice that a block progression line works really well a lot of the time. Since this piece involves so much from so many different sources, angles, contexts and scenes, I think that it would have been wiser to keep all the information about the same place together in the story.
What I did like about this piece was its focus on science. I thought the writer did a great job of explaining biological systems and concepts, using metaphors to describe the way species relate to one another. Although she did use a few technical terms, I think that overall the texts explained the concepts well enough for any non-science lovers to get a good idea of what the piece was trying to get across. I agree that it is hard to get at the 'emotional heart' of something if that 'something' is about science. What emotion is there in something so concrete? I think that by describing in a lot of detail and painting an elaborate and accurate picture of the issue, Whitty got across the emotional aspect of the story as she intended. After reading, I felt a sense of loss and a sense of urgency to act. I also liked how she brought in the issue of border patrol and building a border securing-fence and how that affects the heart of the issue. I really liked the idea that, "All the new fence will really arrest is the flow of nature's immigrants." This is definitely a big, messy story, attacking the problem from a variety of angles and providing all the information necessary.
I recognized the lede was anecdotal. It brought me into the story well, and by the end, I had a good idea of what the piece would be about. I found the kicker a bit too editorial, and I wonder if the piece wouldn't have been better if the author had left the 'I' out of it, and only brought up 'we' in the sense of 'we human beings' as a species. I agree with Lauren that the writer should have maybe removed herself from the writing process.
I, too, admire this piece's complexity. Good find, Lauren!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Mass Extinction article was an excellent attempt at spreading awareness. Nevertheless, the format and points seemed unplanned.
I agree that the topics and the narration were not well timed or organized. It is often more difficult to organize scientific writings that are meant to appeal to a population inerudite in such scientific material.
I do not think that the number of sources added to the disjointed nature of the article. I would have appreciated if this author would have done more research and offered more references. If there had been great focus on single point that were better supported this would have been a better article.
I also liked the scientific focus of the article. It brought a change of pace to our class readings. I, however, do not think that this author did a good job exlaining the biological reasoning behind the need for biodiversity.
Too many issues were addressed in this article for their to be a coherent and concise argument with a consolidated and easily defined conclusion. Some may say that global warming = bad is the conclusion but there were so many points that focused on tangential issues. Granted these issues are important, maybe this topic is deserving of a longer article.
I did not like the piece. I know there are better articles about the same topic.
I agree that the article seemed a little bit scattered and almost tried to do too much. As a non science person it was fairly easy to understand, but there was just too much going on. It was interesting to read a science article and compare and contrast the style and reportage like the articles that we have been reading that are more socially based.
Post a Comment