Melissa's Site

The revision process for paper two took quite a look of work. There were so many things that I needed to tend to in order to make this paper work. For this paper I encountered a lot more problems than I ever did in the first paper. There was just a lot of information and I didn’t know how to handle it all. Trying to relate one piece to another for multiple pieces is a little tedious. Trying to find those right quotes that match each other that I could somehow relate took some patience. I feel like it was easy to lose track of what my thesis actually was. I definitely know I could’ve related more to my thesis throughout the whole essay, I think I may have lacked on that a little bit. One of the main things I had a lot of trouble with while writing this essay was the amount of words I had. I just had an abundance of words that I felt made the paper, making it difficult to get rid of some of them. I found myself struggling with trying to illuminate most of the words and trying to piece it all together to make sense (without it seeming like information was missing). I felt like I just had way too much information but I felt like I needed it all in order to support my thesis. So I was just really hard to see what needed to be taken out. Another problem I ran across was the organization of the essay. I felt that it was sort of all over the place when I first started. The flow of it didn’t really make sense. However after I finished my third draft I was finally able to start piecing it all together. Overall I think I put a lot of effort into this and I believe I did the best that I possibly could. I spent a lot of time working on this and I think it turned out pretty well I’m sure there’s a couple things I could’ve used more work, but overall my best efforts were put into this.

In the interview with Terry Gross, Caitlyn Doughy, a motitican, talks about many ideas revolving death, something she is very passionate about. One thing Doughty brings up is the the word romantic during the interview, which seemed like an odd word to be relating death to. I thought the idea of how Doughty considered cremation to be romantic very unusual. I don’t think I know anyone who has pictured death to be romanticized. Doughty believes the idea of the body being purified by fire is romantic, but the setting where it all takes place is not. She also brings up the idea of doing this process yourself, skipping a mortician. This was just mind boggling. People actually do this? Doughty considers caring for the corpse as a powerful thing. She believes this is important because the message – that we to will die someday – is missing from our culture. Doughty goes on to talk about the actually cremation process. She talks about what really goes down once you’re in there, alone with the corpse. She goes on to add to something even more unusual, “…you get covered in dust as you’re working and it was much less”. You may be thinking dust? And by dust Doughty meant ashes, ashes of the corpse. I just couldn’t imagine going to work and leaving with the ashes of a corpse on you. When I think about it I feel like its a violation or something, it seems like a bad thing. It’s almost like a wrong to the family, then again I could totally be wrong. However it’s hard to explain but its like that person body is now on you, it’s just odd to think about. You don’t even know the person and then you just have this connection with them now that they are on you is just strange. Doughty’s philosophy is to educate people on a topic less discussed, death. In the interview, Doughty exhibit to us how she feels towards the subject, “I think that we’ve been so hidden from death in this culture for such a long time that it’s very refreshing and liberating to talk about death in an open, honest manner”. This is something that she is quite passionate about. Doughty wants people to learn about it since they will have to face death at one point or another. She presents death in a way that in hopes will make people not afraid of it. The main point Doughty wants us to take as is that death will happen to you, whether you’re expecting it or not. You will most likely never feel comfortable with it but it’s an important process that we all need to face.

Link to interview:

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=352765943

Essay 2, Final Draft

Essay 2, Draft 3

Essay 2, Draft 2

Peer Review Comments: Gunnar Fryzlewicz

Peer Review Comments: Shaylee Amidon

Essay 2, Draft 1

In chapter fourteen of They say, I Say I thought it was interesting when they suggested that changing the opening question of an argument, it changes the way you look at the reading. This makes sense, it’s not something I really ever considered or thought about though. I feel like when we are given a question to focus on, we just focus on that one thing, we are just trying to answer that particular question. In this case we sort of just ignore everything else as we see it as not important. But by changing that overall question, we are changing the overall thought process of the individual. You begin to think more about how the author responded to the argument as well as how it provoked other arguments. You begin to think less about the overall text of the argument. By doing this you are understanding more than just the authors views but also understanding the views on the type of discussion and debate. Another good point that was brought up is how writers will “build their case” by responding to a lack discussion. They do this by pointing out things that others may have overlooked. They try to identify different ideas or things no one ever really talks about. I feel like not a lot of people do this, most people try to lean towards what others found because they know it’s right. But by looking at unknown things allows for us to discover and introduce new concepts and ideas into the situation.

If David Foster Wallace were to be invited to our class for a discussion I would ask him why he chose such an uncommon topic for his essay? Did he choose this smaller, unusual topic as a segway into a much larger, more complex issue? Are there deeper moral questions behind this topic? Did you choose this topic knowing there is controversy over the killing of animals? It is important that with written discourse (discussion) you always allow readers to gather their own thoughts. You want your audience to be able to have their own opinion on the topic. The discussion should not show too much of one side but rather show equal sides while still supporting your own opinion as a writer. In Consider the Lobster, Wallace does just that. He is able to provide just enough information so that the reader is allowed to draw their own conclusions and come up with any questions they may have about his work. I believe that as a writer it is important to show case your work in a way where you can anticipate your audience’s reactions. Wallace doesn’t push the limits on discussion but rather lets his audience form their own judgment by the information he has provided.

Page 2, Passage 3 of Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch

In this first passage I chose to talk about, Michael Pollan, author of Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch, talks about how people are so eager to watch other people cook food on TV but when it comes to us we are less eager to do so. I agree with this all the way. It is a weird thing that doesn’t quite make sense. Why wouldn’t we want to cook something that we love watching someone else make? Wouldn’t we want to experience that to? I think in today’s society this is a big problem. Everyone is lazy. No one wants to put the time or effort in, we would rather just have someone do it for us. But looking at the bigger picture it’s not our faults we are this way, it’s today’s society that has taught us to be like this. It’s all about convenience nowadays.

Page 7, Passage 2 of Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch

In this passage, Pollan talks about what the meaning of “to cook” is. He goes on to say that what people call cooking today is something their grandmother would be ashamed of. But when you really think about it, he’s right, what we call cooking today isn’t really cooking. Typically we are just heating things up or throwing something together that’s halfway premade. The work is already done for us. To cook means to “spread mayonnaise on a slice of bread” but throwing a frozen pizza in the oven isn’t. But to me, none of those things are cooking. Cooking is actually putting single ingredients together and forming this bigger meal. The whole concept of cooking has faded into this big mess of nothingness. As Pollan said the definition has “grown so broad” that it’s almost meaningless now. Pollan hit some very interesting points here and made me question a little bit about how American’s live as well as the real meaning of cooking.

Page 9, Passage 3 of Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch

For the most part everything that Pollan has said, I have agreed with. In this next passage I chose he talks about competitions involving cooking as well as cooking shows in general. He added this analogy that I thought was very fascinating, “How much do you learn about playing basketball by watching the N.B.A.” This was a very interesting point he made because if you really think about it, if you don’t know what you’re watching then you’re pretty much not learning anything. Same thing goes for cooking, do we actually learn anything from watching cooking shows? Or are we just watching it for entertainment purposes? To me cooking shows are all for entertainment purposes, people aren’t watching them to learn things. Pollan is right no ones is “hoping to pick up a few dinnertime tips” from todays cooking shows. They’re not making them to say “go try this at home” they are implying that if you really want this dish then go to a restaurant to have it.