Larissa MacFarquhar does a good job of characterizing Melissa Stephens, one of her sources that volunteered her kidney but was disappointed by the lack of gratitude she received. MacFarquhar first shows Stephens’s personality by quoting her MySpace page, which portrays her as simple, good-natured, and kind to a fault. Although her MySpace quotations have little to do with kidney transplants, this technique is much more effective than simply describing Stephens for the reader.
In David Dobb’s “The Orchid Children,” he successfully uses the first person by describing first his own apprehension to find out his own genetic makeup. This self-referential technique is done well because it addresses the own insecurities and apprehension that his readers must feel when reading article; it’s hard to read an article telling you the effect that genetics can have on your moods, performance, and outlook on life without actually thinking of your own. Thus, the reader empathizes when following David’s own submission of his genes for assaying. In Evan Ratliff’s “Vanish,” his use of the first person is not only well executed, but I think it’s one of the main factors that first sucks the reader in. While I think most people would be interested to read about someone’s experience on “the lam,” this story is really captivating through the first person -- as if we see exectly what Ratliff sees and know exactly what he knows about how to hide his trail. I think these are two fantastic examples of when the first person works: when it allows the writer to make a connection with the reader and what must be going through his or her own thoughts or when it allows the reader to see the story through the eyes of the writer making the scenario more lively and in realtime as it does in “Vanish.”
“This Is Your Brain on Football” follows forensic coroner, Omalu, to address the central theme of late Mike Webster’s chronic head injuries. It uses high levels of characterization of Omalu as an enthusiastic and rookie neurosurgery specialist and even personifies the brain as an organ that is intricate and incredibly needy. In contrast, “Failing Our Athletes” has a much more straightforward writing style and not so much anecdotal techniques to entice the reader.
Dobbs also really helps to make genetics more understandable for the reader by using more colloquial language opposed to the scientific terms. When he does use scientific terms, however, he gives a concise and intuitive definition so that the reader can quickly understand and retain the meaning of the term throughout the article. An example of this is how he refers to the new genetic theory that his article is about as the “orchid hypothesis” -- a term that he admits he completely makes up but that also holds thematic and intuitively understandable elements for readers.
“Vanish” is an incredibly enjoyable read because Ratliff lets the reader get as into it as he is. As mentioned before, his use of the first person is really captivating, and all of his detailed, extensive efforts to keep his identity hidden really kept me rooting for him. I also felt his paranoia when the helicopter seemed to follow him when he was jogging on Venice Beach. Thus, Ratliff is really able to connect to the reader and allow them to see life on the lam through his eyes.
The structure of “The Kindest Cut” begings with the anecdote of organ donor, Paul Wagner, in order to address its central theme. Following this anecdote, MacFarquhar then pulls out, directly asks the reader for their opinions on Wagner’s actions and anonymous organ donorship, and gives us some background information on kidney donors in general. She then introduces us to the history of matchingdonors.com and then subsequently gives the reader more data and facts about donorship but in an easily readable way. Thus, she alternates her anecdotal sections with highly informative parts of the article that reinforce the reader’s understanding of each.
Really good insightful comments
ReplyDelete