Why does Orlean choose to use the seminars in the article? Is it a good idea?
Why does Orlean include the history of taxidermy? Was it a good idea?
The thought that Orlean choose to include the seminars in the article is an interesting thought. The seminars are about how to perform certain procedures on the taxidermy-ed animals. They did not directly involve anything to do with the competition itself. I think Orlean was trying to add to the fact that there was more to do at the competition than just the competition. You can learn more about your profession, if you're a taxidermist, but if you are not a taxidermist, you can still learn how they conduct their profession. It makes the championship sound more like an attract to the general public more than just a boring and taboo competition.
The thought that Orlean includes the history of taxidermy in the article is also an interesting thought. The average reader of The New Yorker would probably not know much about the world of taxidermy besides the common thought of taboo. In general, an author should include some history of the subject that they are covering. It is a good practice if you want to be a good writer. However, I do find it extremely interesting that Orlean includes everything including the websites. I think she realizes that if the reader decides that they want more correct information about taxidermy, they could easily access it through the websites.
This is an interesting analysis of how Orlean is (potentially) thinking about her audience. I like the idea that she's trying to present taxidermy as something less "taboo" or esoteric....but why? Why does she do that?
ReplyDeleteI like the ideas that you address in your blog. She does really relate the convention to everyday people.
ReplyDelete