Reading Journal!

1. The facebook quote from The Kindest Cut of “I LOVE CAKE” was perfect. And the direct quotes of that character describing herself. I immediately disliked her and could picture her in my mind from the first paragraph.
2. First person usage in Vanish works really well, it makes the piece and justifies it because he uses this as the tone and gateway into information through the whole article. It just would not be the same piece any other way. I feel like in This is Your Brain on Football the first person is used in a very tricky but great way. She writes without using the actual “I” but her voice is definitely heard and the write is a sort of character in the piece. She also comments on the other characters as if it factual information, and makes a few statements that are said so imperatively but are obviously her opinion. Such as: “history gets written. People shout and claim turf. Heroes get invented.” This is seemingly objective, but after thinking about what these three statements are implying, you realize that this is the writers opinion and she is sating this so we understand her thought process or her idea on how things work so that we can better grasp the story as a whole and understand her not entirely objective perspective.
3. The character of Bennet Omalu is an expert, but such a character. The descriptions of him are wonderful and make the science stuff so much easier to understand after I have already decided that I like the person/character who is discovering it and doing the science work. I think he is made into a character because the writer describes him as an individual going through the process in a very relatable way. Rather than the writer just beginning with some expert quotes and then back tracking or adding in information on the expert.
4. Failing our athletes presents data much differently than in a news story because it is blended right into the piece, as if in a conversation but also sometimes the writing almost pauses to break down the data in figures and bullet points. In a news story data and opinion are not mixed, and they are presented as statements, not supporting evidence as I felt was the case in this article. The data is being used to guide you/ persuade you rather than tell you objectively.
5. The Kindest cut really aggravated me. That character Stephens was just someone that would drive me absolutely crazy and I dispute so many of her points that I just got annoyed reading the article because of her. That’s a pretty strong emotion- I’m sure not the best kind, but it definitely roused one.
6. Your brain on football is eloquently written as with a more essay-esque flow. Your brain on football reads more like a report, it is choppier and does not as thoroughly build the characters, but rather shifts few several. Your brain on football could almost even be a profile leading into a larger issue. And your brain on football describes the different viewpoints in an order similar to the order that they popped into my head as a reader. You know, like it seemed natural as if the writer was doing the investigatory work not all at once, but piece by piece.
7. I did not think that the subject matter in The Orchid Children was all that difficult. The writer simply made the subject matter out to be much more profound and science-y than it needed to be. Not that this topic is not an interesting and intelligent one, but I think the writer could have broken it down the issue of these two types of kids and different environments into lame-man’s terms and the article would have read better. I would have picked names (catch half-humorous ones) for each group of children in their specific situation so that so many adjectives were not necessary each time that type of kid came up. Does this make any sense?
8. Vanish is such an enjoyable read because you feel like you’re reading his diary. And he is letting you into his own secret world of thoughts. Of course that is enjoyable, and it has this pseudo-investigative tone of stating facts, but is embellished when appropriate and includes his personal commentary.
9. I am not sure of the technical term for this structure, but it is… describe particular scene, introducing characters. Then back to writer for writer-to-reader objective background information, facts and commentary. Then elaborate on that with the character scene again. Then cut from that scene again and go to supporting information. It is almost as if the writer is the expert and the expert’s support are these profiles. And the expert is asking something of the reader, or pushing he/she to go further than what is commonly thought.