WRD 110 – Reading Response
Almost immediately upon delving into the presented reading assignment and its opening tale I found myself waiting for the explosive thought bomb payoff. It is after all a common writing convention to open with what is an ostensibly a non-sequitur story or reference, then occasionally build upon it while obscuring or outright misleading the assumed tie in. Inevitably comes a brutal in your face wham line meant to set the reader on a pathway of thought the author hopes will eventually sway the reader to their point of view. I was not disappointed, and though I do agree with the notion of “If nothing matters, there’s nothing to save”, I cannot help feel it is a rather painfully obvious pressure toward the reader that nothing truly matters in the face of the author’s moral authority.
The moral authority I speak of is that consumption of animals is unquestionably wrong. Is this statement made directly? Of course not. Indeed, the author is quick to point out his work is not intended as anything more than a neutral commentary. However, at several points the failings and fallacies of not adhering to a vegetarian diet are hinted upon if pontificated at length. In fact, the author makes an effort through the entirety of the piece to speak upon his level of dedication and sometimes the lack thereof. What I find personally troubling is at no point the concept of avoiding animal consumption itself is ever questioned or even discussed. From the author’s point of view, his only failings are that of succumbing to the desires of taste and habits of a busy existence. Are we to simply accept as fact vegetarianism is a higher form of living one inspires to?
Without spinning a tale of my own, I will instead state my own experiences teach that effective communication means knowing your audience. This audience (you) has already been sized up and found to be a diverse lot. Opinions on food and more importantly how those opinions were presented indicate there are those among you who passionately agree with Mr. Foer’s overall position. Others like myself most certainly will not. It is a debate that while stimulating to tackle would well surpasses the scope of this response. I would instead implore you to dispassionately review Mr. Foer’s writing and ask yourself the following:
- Did you find the work to be pragmatically informative, emotionally persuasive, or both?
- What evidence was presented as support for the author’s viewpoint?
- If you wished to also convey the author’s message, what amendments if any would you make?
Thank you for taking time to consider this response.
Damon V. Caskey
2014-08-30