In garrett-Browns paper he discovered what he really wanted to learn after reading the article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He read the quotes by Rheta Grimsley Johnson and came up with his own thought of why people use tanning beds instead of going outside and enjoying the sun. He states " It struck me as I read the last lines of this sardonic critique of society that I don't necesssarily wonder why people tan, but why they completely gyp themselves of the pleasures of the sun to be rewarded with a battle with cancer at worst and saggy skin at best." He started writing the paper with a simple question "why do people tan?" Yet after his research he came up with his own opinion on the matter and therefore obligated to it. He moved himself into an area of debate if necessary. He also didnt just state plane facts in the writing. He added his own opinion about certain subjects and his own opinions about articles he had read while doing his research. While if it was a normal research paper there would be no need of his opinions or thoughts, just the plane, simple, boring facts.
In Holmquist's paper he discovered his own love of drugs while writing the paper. "During my research for this paper there have been countless times that I've wanted LSD or MDMA because I was reminded of the times I've done them in the past..." He also seemed to be very cultured on drugs, especially the way he described each one using only research to help him inform the reader. I believe he also discovered how much he has grown from that situation, how he had his "whole life ahead" of himself.
The controlling idea in Garrett's seems to be his misunderstanding of todays "tanning" ways. He doesnt understand the lifestyle of the people of today, always using the tanning beds opposed to using the natural sunlight ,that to him actually stands for something. "A nice tan once meant you spent your days on the beach playing volleyball and swimming, hiking in the mountains or riding a horse..." He talks about how Coco Chanel came home one day from a day out on her yacht and it somehow melted into a fashion statement, indirectly erecting tanning beds across America.
While in Holmquist's paper it seems to be more of an informative paper for drugs to the readers. He wants to educate the reader about the drug. He talks about each drug's use for good and bad. How one can cause "euphoric" feelings, while another can leave you in "perma-fry." He's neither against nor for each drug, he mainly states his opinions and experiences about each. Yet he tells his side of the story, yet still not trying to influence us to pick either, but to better educate us so we can decide for ourselves if the reader happens to run into these drugs.
Garrett's voice is very loud to me in his paper, he is always adding his own opinion about the topic discussed. " People still feel healthy with a bastardized tan?" He adds his own views to the topic and even offers incentives on reasons not to tan and how much more fun you could be having. While Holmquist's paper seemed to be lacking a whole lot of voice. It seemed to be more of a factual paper than anything. Even though he did have his own experiences on some of the issues talked about. The bulk seemed to be filled with mainly informative research about each drug. His paper was filled with a bunch of drug jargon that he knew though. He did have a very cultured view on every drug he seemed to talk about. He would describe the drugs in a way not many people could relate to.
I believe that Holmquist's paper did do a really good job at combing his sentences with what he was talking about and the research he had done. I really like the transition between both. I also think Ballengers example of "beginning with a questions not answers, and accepting ambiguity as a natural part of the process," to be a great view on how to start a research essay. I have thought of many ideas that I know answers to and this helped me think a little more outside of the box, to open up to new ideas and discover things I know little to nothing about.
Jason McGee
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I thought it was interesting how you said Garrett's voice was very loud in her essay. I agreed with what you said about Holmquist's essay. For example how he learns about his love of drugs as he writes his essay. I also thought that you had good use of examples throughout your reading response. It backs up your ideas and makes me understand parts of Garrett's essay that I otherwise would not have gotten, such as, how her voice showed in the essay.
I agree with you when you say that these essays are two different kinds of essays and that Holmquists essay is more of an iformative essay. I like the way you structured your response!
I agree with you when you say that these essays are two different kinds of essays and that Holmquists essay is more of an iformative essay. I like the way you structured your response!
Post a Comment