Writing Feedback / "Who Swims with the Tuna" by Quammen and "Riches of the Sea" by Scully [3]

This essay intends to compare two essays and evaluate their arguments.

Argument Analysis: What kind of argument floats better with the reader?

"Who Swims with the Tuna" by David Quammen and "Riches of the Sea" by Matthew Scully provide commentary on the demise of Marine Mammals. "Tuna" is about public reaction to the death of dolphins, while "Riches" is about international whaling and the controversy surrounding it. In my essay, I will argue that the argument in "Tuna" is more convincing. I will establish that "Tuna", as an argument, is more persuasive because it employs a suitable style of writing, establishes a clear cut topic, relies on its own originality as well as being concise and objective.

"Tuna" and "Riches" are different styles of text. "Tuna" is more analytical and dialectic, with the author questioning the perception of all people, including his own, and using that to come to his final conclusion. This style of writing is much more suitable for an argumentative style of writing because it isn't reliant on a summary or too many figures. "Riches" is a mixture of essay and recount. The author provides a summary and devotes a large portion of his text to quotations from various figures associated with his subject as well as citing numerous facts, figures and anecdotes. He also adds his own analysis on the IWC and its convention, as well as the broader subject of whaling. "Riches" excels at informing the reader of the occurrences at the IWC (International Whaling Commission) convention in 2000. However, as an argument his style of writing is not very effective. Scully's arguments are constantly side tracked and the reader's attention is diverted to nonessential information.

When it comes to introducing a topic, both writers have different approaches. David Quammen brings his argument to the forefront immediately in "Tuna" by outlining his thesis statement in the first paragraph. "The killing of dolphins is a national outrage; the killing of Tuna is a given. I keep asking myself why. There are some good reasons and some bad reasons, I think, which haven't been closely examined, or even sorted apart". Quammen makes the reader's job easy, which is essential for a good argument. He identifies what he will be talking about, giving the essay structure and a focus point. In contrast, Scully fails to identify his topic immediately, preferring to use an informal interview as the basis for his introductory chapter, which spans over five pages. Because of this, Scully fails to establish his issue and solidify his position. His opening pages simply reflect the views of somebody else, he doesn't allow himself to create a statement or ask a question that will give the text direction.

When comparing essays, both authors differ in their use of direct quotations. In "Tuna", the author rarely quotes, opting to paraphrase instead. When he does quote, they rarely exceed one or two sentences and they are put into the context of his own writing. This allows Quammen to assert his own argument and be concise in his text, keeping the reader interested and focused. In contrast, "Riches" devotes a large portion of the text to quotes from his interviewees. Because of this, Scully doesn't allow himself to enforce his own viewpoint, rather letting his quotations do that for him.

In "Tuna", Quammen also succeeds in making his text as brief as possible by going straight to the point and not using any irrelevant information without omitting any vital facts. "Tuna" allows the reader to absorb all of its information and argument in a very precise and uncomplicated matter, giving the reader better chance to identify with its argument. Scully sets the tone in his introduction of a text that has no true argument or structure, being more of a recap than an argument. With quotes taking a large section of his text and a lot of writing being invested into nonessential information, Scully's text spans over 49 pages and is difficult to read. His story shows a large and thorough research phase but shows a lack of refinement and abstraction in the end product.

In terms of objectivity, both writers have similar biases due to opposing dietary practices. It is revealed in "Tuna" that Quammen indulges in meat and in an extract before the beginning of "Riches" it is revealed that Scully is a vegan. In "Tuna", Quammen considers his own bias as a "confirmed carnivore" and evaluates it; comparing it to other viewpoints and then drawing his conclusion. It doesn't necessarily make him less biased but it does make his conclusion more balanced. In comparison, Scully does not aknowledge his own bias in "Riches". While it is noticeable that he is against whaling, readers would not know the underlying reason for this stance could be a product of his veganism.

Both "Who swims with the Tuna" and "Riches of the Sea" are well rounded and well written pieces of work that explore their respective topics in thorough but different ways. Despite this, "Tuna" argument is much stronger because it uses a more suitable style of writing as well as a clear topic, abstraction, transience and the ability to identify bias and moderate its effect on its conclusion. It gains superiority over "Riches" due to its style of writing, which fits the classical mould of the "Critical Analysis". Quammen's introduction, body and conclusion all interact well with each other and mixed with his concision makes it a hard text to misinterpret or lose focus whilst reading. On the other hand, "Riches" provides abundant information surrounding the IWC's Convention in 2000. He recounts the event with accuracy and his analysis of the IWC is not out of place. It isn't hard to see that each writer had different visions for their story. It just so happens that the vision of "Tuna" contained many components which made it a much more convincing argument.

Writing Feedback / In the Kitchen: Constructing Identity [2]

This is my first draft of "In the Kitchen, by Henry Louis Gates Jr." it's quite messy but I hope it sums what I need it too... all criticism accepted. Rip me to shreds. Cheers.

Basically the paramaters of my essay are;
How is identity constructed?
How are elements of writing used to construct id?

In the Kitchen is a narrative into a specific era of the childhood of African American writer Henry Louis Gates Jr. Based in an era of social change and cultural shifts, specifically assimilation, the text subtly explores the standards of the time and what they meant for him as an adult.

The language of the text falls in between colloquial and formal, with some describing words used informally, such as "Moma" instead of Mother and "Daddy" instead of Father. However, the majority of the text is well punctuated and well structured and could not be deemed purely colloquial. The tone is very intimate, there is no spite nor is there any angst in Gates' words. The entire story is a nostalgic recollection of his adolescence. The meanings of the story are implemented with stealth and only after two or three readings can you begin to grasp what it truly represents.

As the title would explain, "In the Kitchen" is largely based around "the kitchen". However, in this instance the word kitchen has 2 meanings. As he begins his text, he describes the kitchen where his mother cut hair and where they kept their gas stove. However, as the text moves on, it is revealed that "the kitchen" is also a section of hair at the back of the head. When his mother would cut the hair of her customers[neighbours or friends], she would iron and straighten their hair in a Caucasian manner. The Kitchen, however, was unable to be manipulated in such a way due to its abundant curliness. As Gates described, the Kitchen was "Unassimilably African." His mother never tried to straighten the kitchen, opting to cut it off entirely. According to Gates, when the kitchen began to grow back, it was time for a new haircut.

"In the Kitchen" is almost completely related to hair. However, as you read between the lines, it isn't specifically hair that held the great importance, it's what hair represented. The want for good hair mirrors the pressures on the African American community to Assimilate in the 1950s, to leave their shamed culture behind and become a part of white society. In the text it is evident that most of this pressure is internal, coming from members within the African American community as a result of centuries of White American persecution.

Across Gates' entire sphere of influence, ranging from his parents, to his peers and even celebrities, one thing was for certain. Good hair was absolutely necessary. Be it in relation to social standing, appropriateness or fame. As a testament to the self identification of African American's at the time, Gates outlines the standard of hair in the community. At the time Good hair was "white hair", straight and wavy. Bad hair was the naturally kinky hair common to most African Americans. Here Gates constructs the identity of a people ashamed of their natural state, who in order bow down to their superiors, went to great lengths at changing their image to look Caucasian.

Gates also speaks of how African Americans, even after the Black Empowerment movement of the late 60s, and especially the older people, would still straighten their hair and despite their liberation, still had trouble departing from white standards. He relates how older men would still keep their stocking cap (used for putting well defined waves in the hair when mixed with grease) with their most prized possessions. When visiting his mother in the early 80s, he recalls her checking his daughters' hair for the "turn" of the kitchen. Even after many years of black empowerment, integration, cultural determination and relative freedom, many African Americans were still inflicted by the dogma of early 20th century black culture embedded in their psyche, perhaps even Gates himself.

He relates his own hair, how barbers said it was a "good grade" as a child and how he tried every brand of wax to straighten his hair and as he got older and moved into the late 1960s his self perception evolved. "From Murray's to Duke to Afro-Sheen: that was my progression in black consciousness." Both Murray's and Duke were substantially strong hair greases, aimed at making hair flat and wavy, but Afro-sheen was the exact opposite, rather than oppressing the kinkiness of African hair, embracing it to its greatest extent.

In the kitchen is about African American standards and perceptions in the midst of Assimilation in the 1950s and 60s. He explores, through the subject of hair, what it meant to be black in this time of change. He paints a vivid picture, through the intimacy of his childhood recollection and the subtlety of his language, of African American self perception. Hair could be seen as a metaphor for the African American identity at the time where certain standards where prevalent, where to be white was good and to be black was bad. Despite this, Gates' tone and language is largely objective, indicting neither black nor white people of any wrong doing, merely telling the story how he sees it.