DEADLINE: Please post before 11am on Thursday May 10.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Omnivore's Dilemma
Please post a brief informal response (short paragraph) to the reading from Pollan's book. Your response can take almost any form -- discuss something that intrigues you or surprises, that infuriates or charms you or that you strongly agree or disagree with -- and explain why. Or talk about the writing style and method -- what you notice he's doing, and whether it works or not / why. Or consider how Pollan approaches his topic in ways we haven't yet seen writers do... and how this approach affects you as a reader. Or something else. Use the COMMENTS box, below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I had previously read selections from Omnivore's Dilemma in my AP Environmental Science class back in high school, I had actually forgotten how much I enjoyed Pollan's style of writing, even though I don't necessarily agree with all of his arguments. I find it quite interesting how he capitalizes specific words like "Nature," "Meat," "Fish," and "Produce" (examples all from Chapter 1) in order to draw attention to them, or elevate them beyond the simple categories that readers normally see them as. Pollan also effectively uses imagery that readers can easily relate to in order to explain otherwise complex topics: for example, on page 21, he describes the balance between losing water and taking in of CO2 by plants as equivalent to losing blood every time you opened your mouth to eat. The author also uses repetition in the central paragraphs on page 18 effectively to keep emphasizing how ubiquitous corn is in our diet; according to Pollan, it literally has a role in everything we eat even if it simply contributes to the packaging of the product. Finally, I enjoyed his use of a different perspective when talking about agriculture, as if corn were the masters of humans who planted them - I had never seen this perspective before and I thought it was used effectively to get the readers to think from a non-traditional vantage point.
ReplyDelete--Victor Chen
I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of this piece. The writing, I'll admit, is impressive and certainly does of a good job of grasping the reader's attention -- notably by linking corn into our every day lives, such as through the supermarket analogy, and appealing to the pride Americans take in their history.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I found it hard not to see this piece as slightly arrogant. Pollan appears quite determined to fit the facts around how ubiquitously corn is used, and seems to simplify or ignore other parts of the food-making progress. I know the US agricultural industry is a powerful beast, but a lot of food consumed in the US is imported. On a more positive note, I thought the isotopes part of the piece was well done and that the references to "corn sex" were humourous.
-- Joel
One of the things I really like about the Pollan piece is how he brings corn to life. Corn is not just a plant. As you read, you almost believe that corn has a mind and agenda of its own. There are a few ways he does accomplishes this. First, instead of passively describing corn, he pairs it with action verbs. Corn does this or corn does that. Pollan describes corn as the one making decisions or the one choosing humanity to help it germinate. He writes that corn “has succeeded in domesticated us” or corn as “conquered our diet.” Perhaps the most memorable example is his vivid description of corn sex and the plant’s open relationship with people. A second way Pollan personifies corn is by showing us how we are essentially corn, or rather, “processed corn”. I was quite surprised that scientists found North Americans are comprised of higher percentages of carbon 13 than you would expect given the “variation” in our diets. Essentially, we are corn on two legs. Talk about world (or just North American) domination. Yikes!
ReplyDeleteEarlier this year I had a course on Romantic science, where I was asked what a Romantic scientist, a Naturphilosoph, would be like today. Now I've got an answer.
ReplyDeletePollan's description of the supermarket and his reference to Carl von Linné (Linneaus) is a powerful romanticizing of the "natural" world. Making us think of all the products in the supermarket as a result of a recombination of livestock and plants, does however seem a bit over the top to me, especially when he goes on to state that it is in fact all just corn. He might as well say that 70-80 % of all we are eating is just plain water, but I guess that wouldn't help his point.
The importance of corn is huge in North America. The way Pollan describes it he makes us think it is all over the world, without mentioning it, which is interesting seeing that it plays a much smaller role everywhere else.
(I don't know if you'll read this, Joel, but corn accounts for 90% of feed grains produced in the US--Pollan is a lot of irksome things, but exaggerating he is not)
ReplyDeleteI'll second (third?) the prior two comments in regards to Pollan's writing style and ability to hook in a reader. He's engaging, humorous, and rather pithy--which is a blessing in this sort of science writing. I'd have appreciated a better breakdown/analysis of the isotope testing results. I wanted to know exactly what sorts of ratios Dawson's team measured in various populations, if only for my own sadistic pleasure.
And therein lies my biggest problem with Pollan's book, although I'll freely admit to being in a self-selected minority. The introduction to the chapter suggests a sinister secret behind the 'flora and fauna' of the modern supermarket. But read on, and you realize that the it's really just the fauna (and the oft-derided 'other' consisting of such delicacies like Twinkies) that comes with an insidious back story. This book might be entitled "The Omnivore's Dilemma," but for the moment all I can see is "The Herbivore's Revenge."
I liked to way he starts out his piece. He hooks us readers, who have all been to the supermarket at least once, by tapping into our natural curiosity about "where does this all come from?" I also found it interesting how he turns upside down the idea of humans in control manipulating their surroundings. Turns out, we're being played by some half-alive freak of a plant which wouldn't last a generation in the wild if it couldn't manipulate humans to do its bidding.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I couldn't help but smile at his sometimes not-so-subtle inneuendos in the last section appropriately titled "corn sex." I thought he makes a very strong point in a humorous fashion when he says "Looked at another way, corn was the first plant to involve humans so intimately in its sex life. For a species whose survival depends on how well it can gratify the ever shifting desires of its only sponsor, this has proven to be an excellent evolutionary strategy"