Consider the Lobster response

               David Foster Wallace’s writing about the Maine Lobster Festival entitled Consider the Lobster starts off as a lengthy description about the history of the lobster industry in New England and the festival itself, but eventually switches into an exploration of the ethics. The charge of the ethics section is much greater than the background section of his review and presents an emotional appeal that makes the readers not want to be near a room with a boiling lobster inside. The switch in his focus means that he is attempting to appeal to his intended audience in a more directed voice. His original hook in the first several pages was to catch the interest of foodies and gourmet enthusiasts who would be interested in the huge festival. He intended later to switch his tone in a manner that would not be too off topic, but rather a slight change in the discussion towards a more provocative issue in the lobster business. Wallace attempted a risky sequence of writing when he switched the focus and parts of it were not successful. For instance, I think that the change in voice was too sudden and did not parallel the rest of the article very well. Had the author written a shorter background, he could have been able to focus more on the controversial argument. His decision to include the charged argument in his article tells readers that he personally is not sure how he feels about cooking animals while they are living. He does not express this until the end of the article, but he just wants to provoke thought on the topic, he personally has not decided on an opinion. The beginning of his article does not suggest this point at all and he shares his thoughts with the connotation that he is against cooking lobster alive. A second look at this point, however, yields that he may be trying to appeal to the lesser viewed opinion among his audience. An audience of foodies is sure to have a majority of people that are perfectly fine with cooking living animals if it means a tasty meal.

Overly Documented Life

               The overly documented life is an essay about how people would react to a camera following them everywhere. AJ Jacobs wrote this inquiry through his own personal research. He wore a camera around everywhere to document his life and people’s reactions to his actions. This experiment was the basis for his research that he used to back up his claims. Jacobs based his story as a narrative, which is an effective way to write because he maintains continuity in his story and he has firsthand experience from which to tell. The author maintains authority throughout his paper by taking the work of an expert and replicating it in his own experiment. He takes the work of Gordon Bell, who has been tracking his life’s data for years and decides to perform a trial of this experiment in his own life. His decision to do that allows the authority of the expert to bring his own credibility as an author up. The author’s use of pictures in his article are very helpful because he has a lot of evidence to fall back on with his narrative and argument. In terms of Huxley’s three directions, Jacobs effectively follows the autobiographical arrow through his narrative. His objectivity is strong too, even in his narrative. The writing is not subjective even though he is writing from his own perspective. The author avoids bias through his use of pictures and his focus on the argument rather than his own opinion about the things going on around him. He uses concrete details to express his points, but also adds a touch of personality. An example of this is when he is caught on the camera staring at the woman’s boobs. Readers can sense his slight fear that his wife will find out and this represents the same phobia that anyone would feel if they found this result from experimentation.

Looking At Women

               The question that Scott Russell Sanders presents us with is how we should look at women. To Sanders, this has always been a question of interest since he was very young which makes the setting very rich and enticing. It is clear that he provides a lot of detail about his topic from his own experience, even though it was so long ago in his life. I think the fact that he remembers the event so vividly after this many years is proof that this question is truly important to him and that he is passionate about his writing on the subject matter. This interest adds to the author’s large authority he gathers through great phrasing and an educated argument. Huxley points out that personal, autobiographical experience is essential to successful writing, and Sanders accomplishes this through his rich backstory that illustrates many facets of the question he poses.  The author uses concrete examples such as when he brings in the Jimmy Carter interview with Playboy that back up his points well. An influential figure that fits the persona that he describes is a great example to use to back up his point. It helps the author cultivate ethos in his writing. I believe that the author has a good abstract and universal direction in his writing because he targets an issue that every man faces in some fashion, but does not address in his life. His writing makes a man confront this issue and hear what he has to say about it. I also like the source that Sanders uses consistently by the author Beauvoir because by lacing these points through his he finds a new voice to keep the reader on his or her toes. Reusing this source throughout also allows Sanders to hold an expert’s opinion juxtaposed to his own, which too adds to his ethos.

Peer Review: Clerks

Clerks

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

Some parts of the paper were just summary, when your analysis would be more worth your audience’s time. The paper did have good insight and sources in the analysis though and you wrote it well. I would have liked to read more of your analysis because I found it interesting.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

You support the arguments well with description and many examples.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

The voice is authoritative except when you have the plot summary area. The tone is consistent and fits well with the writing that you present.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes, the author effectively does all of these.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

Yes, you had a very nice conclusion that related to the type of audience that may enjoy this film.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper transitions well.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

I liked the word choice.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Research is evident.

·       grammar and spelling

It is a little wordy at the top of the fourth page in the “his job, his current girlfriend…” sentence.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

Reread the plot summary area and perhaps add some analysis to some of those parts to support them. I like what you already have because it is descriptive, but you may benefit from adding some of your own input, just not in first person. Secondly, just read the paper out loud and see if there are any phrases that you want to change, there is nothing wrong, but it may help you transition things more easily.

Peer Review: Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

The piece clearly addresses how great of a film Luhrman’s Romeo and Juliet is. The author clearly has ethos in the review based on the amount of description and the word choice used. I really liked the review’s style and flow.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

The author uses reactions to many of the scenes in the film to support her arguments. The review talks a lot about the plot of the play, which could be seen as a spoiler, but I liked the commentary on each scene, especially the ending scenes. The language used to describe the actors was very enticing and kept authority.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

The author cultivates a lot of ethos through strong word choice and interesting references and metaphors.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes, it is very clear in the introduction that the author likes Romeo and Juliet and wants to explain why.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

     

The conclusion was lacking. The final description of the death scene does not flow into the conclusion well because the conclusion could be elevated to match the same intensity.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper flows very well except into the conclusion.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

Word choice was exceptional.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Sources are cited at the end of the review, but nothing is quoted or even paraphrased from those sources.

·       grammar and spelling

Take the contractions out such as Doesn’t and It’s. Rephrase some of the passive voice to make it active (word has filters under proofing to check for this). During the final scene, you use the word We to describe yourself and the audience, which flows well with the paper, but try to avoid first person if you can.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

Use citations in your work, whether it is quoting or paraphrasing. Edit some of the grammatical issues with the paper. Those are my only suggestions because the description was excellent and kept my interest.

Peer Review: Origami

Origami

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

I really enjoyed your in depth review of not only the food, but the atmosphere of Origami. The details exemplify my own picture of the restaurant from passing. The piece is quite effective at conveying both the good elements as well as respectfully transmitting constructive criticism.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

The argument is supported through details about the food and the atmosphere. You had a great use of the senses to create setting and solidify the arguments.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

Voice is authoritative and the tone is mild and interesting.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

The conclusion brings both constructive criticism and praise to a concise ending.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper flows smoothly and the different aspects of the story flow well with plot line of your dinner.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

Word choice was excellent.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

You had good sources for such a narrow topic as a specific restaurant and you used them effectively in your paper.

·       grammar and spelling

Try to eliminate the contractions.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

            I loved the review. I would suggest editing the contractions to make them separate words such as “it is” and “do not” instead of “It’s” and “Don’t”. The only critique of substance is perhaps you may want to recap the feedback for the restaurant in the conclusion. This isn’t the focus of the paper, so I can understand why you did not put them in the conclusion, but it is a thought to consider if it strikes your interest.

Conventional and Stylistic Review Introductions

“White Chicks” (2004) is a comedy about two FBI agents on the brink of losing their jobs. After a faulty bust of ice cream vendors, Marcus and Kevin Copeland (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) do the unthinkable: they become white girls and rule the Hamptons. When the Vandergelds, a rich family, become jealous of the attention that the Copeland brothers are getting, they seek to ruin their newfound reputation through sabotage. Keenen Ivory Wayans directs his latest hit since Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2 in this stereotyping, racist comedy. A shoddy production with some funny jokes, “White Chicks” was a mediocre use of 3 hours.

Will the Wayans family ever leave the spotlight of Hollywood? Starring in the early nineties TV show In Living Color, the Wayans have earned their way to multigenerational success in the film and television industry. The 2004 film “White Chicks” is the product of the family’s history of comedy and acting experience. Director Keenen Ivory Wayans casts two of his brothers, Shawn and Marlon Wayans, as his lead actors and sets the tone that this is his family’s movie. 

Movie Reviews- Expert and User Reviews

               I read two reviews on the movie “Get On Up”, one from the New York Times and another from a user named “Holdjerhorses” via IMBD. Many factors separate these two reviews and in a more general sense, user reviews and critic reviews. By analyzing the purpose of both writers, I found that users generally write reviews when they really like or dislike the movie. For instance, the user written review of “Get on Up” really liked the movie and expressed that through his description of certain aspects of the film and his comparison to the movie “Jersey Boys” that was also recently released. The critic review has a broader spectrum of how much the reviewer enjoyed the film. Critics review movies for the job or for the love of film in general. The reviews they produce generally speak about the good and the bad and then a composite overall rating of the film as a whole, which is not as skewed to one end or the other like in most user reviews. I think that the user review did a great job of passing on the culture of the movie while addressing the average moviegoers. The writer used powerful description to address the moving sections of the film that caught his attention, which exemplified them for the people who in turn read his review of it. He went so far as to describe the tonsils of the actor to show that the actor was a good fit for the role of James Brown. This level of description allows the author to hold his readers interest whilst still addressing the cultural impact of the movie. Too much description will turn off the readers, such as in the New York Times review of the movie. The author talked about too many aspects of the movie with little elaboration and should have focused more on a few of those main aspects with greater elaboration. 

PROXiMITY Review

PROXiMITY, a film by the popular short film artist, Ryan Connolly, is an action film that showcases hostages escaping the clutches of armed men through a forest. There is a catch though: each man has a partner and if the bands on their ankles get too far apart from each other then the bands will blow off pieces of their legs. The soundtrack to the film brought suspense to the moments where heartbeats stop and all eyes scan the screen waiting for something pop out. The deep bass draws attention to the situation without an overpowering presence that would destroy the picture’s value. The author evokes his desired pathos through the suspenseful sounds and draws sympathy from his viewers towards his main character so that they too will want him to escape. Connolly utilizes the physical tension between the bands as well as the emotional tension in the viewers’ hearts in tandem to grab and keep their interest. As the film progresses, the tension grows as the bands narrowly avoid destruction with each encounter being closer than the one before it. The tension between these bands is so strong that it even pins the prisoners against each other, making it easier for the hunters to win. The name “proximity” for the film suggests both that the hostages cannot leave the proximity of each other and that the hunters may be closer than a hostage expects. On a deeper level, the hostages don’t know who is actually dangerous to them and by keeping someone who they believe is on their side close to them, they may actually endanger themselves further. For instance, Connolly uses the bands to portray the danger that a lack of proximity can cause, but when the prisoners were too close to each other, they became violent and actually tried to kill each other before the hunters even had a chance to. The title is more likely making the viewers ask themselves “How close is proximity and who is allowed on either side of it?” The ending to the film questions just how far a human being would go to perform the right action. Much like in Star Wars, the victim sees himself travel to the other end of the spectrum to become the killer just to solve the problem. Connolly makes his viewers believe that this man truly wants revenge and that he will take the place of those who caused him pain just to take a seat of power and then in one shot changes his character back to a good person once again. This action as a filmmaker makes the viewers question whether they are the victim or the hunter.

The Ethics in the Godzilla Review

               The ethics of Roger Ebert’s review of “Godzilla” were questionable as he blatantly bashes the film’s special effects, plot, and character roles. The title of the article shows his hatred through the very descriptive words “I hate, hate, hate that movie.” His critique of the movie was very rough for the filmmakers using phrases such as “Godzilla hops out of sight like a camera-shy kangaroo” and “a cast of stereotyped stock characters” to humiliate the producers to the audience. I think the author loses some of his ethos when he harasses the moviemakers using stinging sarcasm to take cheat shots at them. Statements such as the ones said above are the epitome of the author’s position and phrasing on the movie. Ebert’s ethos is questionable through his immature way of harassing the movie but he gains it through his exceptional analysis of the film. He goes into great depth about the character choice, plot, and special effects. For example, he brings up the logic of how the filmmakers do not decide just how big Godzilla is. At some points they have him fit in a subway, but then at other times Godzilla is larger than the skyscrapers of the city. This relates to the authors ethos through his intuition to pick out these logical reasons and base his argument off of them. The concreteness of logic keeps the author’s authority in his review and allows him the tolerance to use a snide, degrading tone with his argument. The audience he is addressing is the general educated public who might be interested in seeing this movie, but I think he focuses it more towards the relatively small group of viewers who are really interested in Japanese filmmaking. I gathered this from his connections to other Godzilla films and the quality that they presented. His relation between the other films and this one gives the small group of viewers the insight into what he is really trying to convey with his connections.

Comparison of Reviews on Yeezus

               Both Pitchfork and the New York Times published reviews of Kanye West’s Album Yeezus. Both of the reviews focused on different aspects of songs in the album such as lyrical meaning and what it says about Kanye, but the reviews had different tones about the content of his music. The Pitchfork review had much more sarcasm and humorous metaphors than the New York Times review, which had a more serious way of describing the album. A quote that both reviews mentioned “soon as they like you make ‘em unlike you” is taken in two different manners. The New York Times uses this quote to show that Kanye boasts his luxurious lifestyle and his lack of desire for followers because he has enough already. Pitchfork spins this quote off to talk about Kanye’s philosophy of not kissing up to the media for more time on the air or more articles in the weekly tabloids. One article depicts Kanye West as a selfish thug at times whilst the other article depicts him as a prophet on topics such as the civil rights movement and the racist stigma that still exists in the young community that is his audience. The clear division in these reviews is due partially to the authors of these articles. Pitchfork solely focuses on music and thus has more experience comparing the music of Kanye West to other artists’ styles. The authors are music enthusiasts who focus on the entire collection of the work from lyrical content to the bass that drives them whereas the authors of the New York Times are probably more interested in dragging imagery from the text to connect it to the outside world. The different personalities of those writing these reviews definitely adds to the bias that surrounds the same exact quote.