I think Orlean's tone is informative, but surprised. She is especially surprised in the beginning of the article. For example: "The championships were held in April at the Springfield, Illinois, Crowne Plaza hotel, the sort of nicely appointed place that seems more suited to regional sales conferences and rehearsal dinners than to having wolves in the corridors and people crossing the lobby shouting, 'Heads up! Buffalo coming through!" (Orlean 1) Here Orlean reveals a sense of astonishment to the fact that this fancy hotel is holding a taboo event. I think she is a reliable author , because she seems to be surprised and informative. She maintains here ethos throughout the piece in my opinion, due to the fact that she talks to various people throughout the event. Orlean conveys the facts involved throughout this piece. She considers the fact that the reader may know absolutely nothing about taxidermy and the fact that the reader may be a taxidermist. She keeps the flow of facts about the championship and taxidermy in general consistent and informative throughout the piece. I believe Orlean wrote an article instead of another medium, because she was assigned this piece and there was no other choice for her.
Work Cited:
Orlean, Susan. "Lifelike." The New Yorker 9 June, 2003. Online.
Does her tone change as the article goes on or does she remain surprised throughout? How do you see the "surprised" tone factoring into her purpose?
ReplyDeleteI like how you used the word taboo. Most of us didn't have any experience or knowledge of taxidermy before reading her article. The first day a lot of us would have described the event as "taboo".
ReplyDelete-Krista
The thought about her ethos never changing is very interesting. She seems to try to maintain a very honest approach to the subject. It is exciting to hear her reaction to some of the things she sees.
ReplyDelete