journals

The main thing in the itinerary of what I will be attending to in revision is adding quotes to my body paragraphs using Barclay’s formula. I’m going to be comparing the two peer essays together, and comparing Pollan’s essay with an essay from the archive. With the peer and archive essays, I’ll set them up by explaining who wrote them and what the author is trying to convey, notably the cultural or emotional influence of the meals. I’ll explain what America used to be like, and why I believe in my thesis. I’ll add a personal anecdote to the introduction to welcome in the reader. Perhaps I’ll also add a rhetorical question. Something that I didn’t really consider before peer review was including evidence for the opposing side of my argument. For example, I could mention how in some cases, convenient foods are necessary and can be more cost effective, which can help struggling families. Some advice that one of my friends gave me was to make my claims less superlative. Although they can be eye-catching, I should word my claims in a way that I can actually support them with evidence. Finally, I feel like my conclusion is kind of lacking, so I’ll probably add more substance to it. 

I added a lot to my introduction. I attempted to invite the reader in by making my thesis more of a discussion topic than a concrete claim. To give context, I opened with what people consider and don’t consider about food. To give context on the essays I would be digging into, I introduced and summarized Wallace’s and Pollan’s essays. I made my own moral senses about food clear, and ended the introduction with my thesis. In the body of the essay, I mainly focused on getting the main points of my paragraphs to relate to the thesis. I listened to what my peer review teammates said and trimmed down my quotes, merged sentences together, and made my writing smoother. Also, I tried to add some better topic sentences. I explained who Joel Salatin is and his importance. A small thing I revised was removing references to Mann’s essay, because I didn’t realize that I only needed to work with two essays. I added another Barclay paragraph between Wallace and Pollan on the subject of culture and background, and I contrasted them to exemplify how culture impacts how people consider animals. I made sure to introduce and explain each quote well. Finally, I added a conclusion. I made an effort to make my conclusion not sound exactly like my introduction. My writing process this time was a little different from project #1. I was a little off schedule with my drafts, and I wasn’t really in a flow. My peer review this time had less advice, and was more vague. I feel like I was given a little less direction this time. I learned that if I want to get work done on an essay, I shouldn’t wait for a “perfect moment”. I should just start writing and let the ideas come to me. 

1. Pg. 8 para. 3; Shows on Food Network know how to get and keep an audience. People enjoy watching competitions; those that are fast, dramatic, and action-packed. People prefer shows that are high energy, rather than slow and methodical tutorials. This comes down to advancements in technology, where shows can be edited with a higher production value. Of course, people have gotten used to this type of programming. This whole thing boils down to people, especially Americans, having a shorter attention span, and therefore finding the task of cooking tedious and undesirable. 
2. Pg. 15 para. 2; Advancements in technology cannot be reversed. When people get used to a new technology, such as microwave ovens, it’s unreasonable to go back to the more inefficient way of doing things. I found it very manipulative how as a way to increase sales, cake mix companies allowed you to add your own egg to the mix, to make you feel like you have some industry over your “cooking”. This passage could support an argument about the negative effects of corporations owning the food industry and about technological advancements making things too quick and easy. 
3. Pg. 19, para. 3; It seems as though nowadays, people are settling for less. I mean, the relationship makes sense; the less food costs, the less quality it will have. Also, the less it costs, the more you can have. Special treats that would have been a labor intensive process to make long ago can today be bought on a whim. I do find it pretty gross how corporations exploit humans’ innate physiological response to fat, sugar, and salt for profit. Again, this could tie into an overarching argument of leaving control of food production in the hands of corporations being a mistake.

Some of the smaller things in my itinerary of what I will be attending to during the revision of my draft are merging sentences together, trimming down quotes, and adding topic sentences. There are also some bigger things that I will have to change. I am very aware that my introduction consists of only my thesis, and that my conclusion is nonexistent. I will be building upon my thesis and turning it into more of a discussion topic, as well as fleshing out a conclusion. In my introduction, I will open with what people consider about food, and then explain my own moral senses about food. Also in the introduction, I will introduce and summarize the essays I’ll be working with and give context. Deeper into the essay, I’ll explain who Joel Salatin is and his importance. In this project, I will be more cognisant of transition words and sentences. I will use transition words to link together conflicting ideas and use transition sentences to link paragraphs. The most cursory problem of my essay is that the paragraphs I have created don’t have any connection to each other yet. Along with ordering them differently, I’ll add in some Barclay-style quotes. I realized that I should only be using two sources, so I’ll be removing references to the Mann essay and only keeping references to Pollan’s and Wallace’s essays.

This chapter goes along with the last one we read, because it emphasizes the importance of indicating to the reader what other people in opposition to your work are saying. This chapter also ties in the overall message of the book, which is entering a conversation. Like in all subjects, criticism is what allows you to grow and allows you to modify your work in a positive direction. Without criticism, you will never be able to see your flaws, and you will never improve. Now, the concept of “planting a naysayer in your text” is not new to me. I remember the first time I was asked to do that in an essay. It was a persuasive essay for the purpose of getting rid of the uniform policy at my old Catholic elementary school. In the essay, I included possible rebuttals authority figures may have had in regard to my argument. I shot them down and made them seem foolish. Even though that essay couldn’t have possibly changed anything, including opposing rationale definitely strengthened my argument. This chapter outlined a lot of pros that come with telling the reader what others might say against you, which I found insightful. Specifically, doing so enhances your credibility rather than undermining it, disarms the objections of critics, identifies problems with your argument before others can point them out for you, shows respect for the reader, and allows yourself to come off as a broad-minded person. The person you are referencing the objections of can actually be yourself; your inner skeptic. You’re allowed to devote space to the naysayer, you shouldn’t immediately write it off. Labeling naysayers adds impact to your writing, but it can also be generalizing. What I found helpful is the advice to not refute an objection entirely, but agree with part of the opposition by saying “yes, but”.

In his essay, David Foster Wallace asks the reader to consider if eating lobster is ethical. What makes eating lobster ethical is if lobsters feel pain or not, which I believe they do. He describes how lobsters prefer not to be boiled alive. Honoring that preference is called being considerate. Being considerate is one of the aspects of the human condition. These essays we have read in class are about this. Consideration for the animals you consume and consideration for the land you use. Now, it was recommended to think about if my opinions of this text are murky or clear after rereading and discussion. My opinions have neither been made clearer nor made murky. I gather that my opinions have been added to. This time, there is more to think about; more to consider. 

Some class discussion made it clear that people’s upbringing determines their predisposition to being considerate or not. People raised in the country are forced to get up close and personal with their food. They are forced to see their food sources as what they are; pigs make pork and pork comes from pigs. Meanwhile, people raised in the city are so far removed from the animal products they are consuming. They get to buy pork from the grocery store, with the reality of it coming from a living, breathing animal being an afterthought. 

There is a difference between the feeling that comes from the sight of a pig being slaughtered and the feeling that comes from the sight of a lobster being boiled alive. Perhaps the distinction between these two sentiments is how the suffering creature communicates its suffering. The pig squeals, while the lobster is silent. People have less concern for the lobster, because it doesn’t communicate pain in a similar way to humans. I believe that humans have the duty to be considerate to all things. My reasoning for this is: why not?