In the essay, “The Case for Reparations” Ta-Nehisi Coates is aware that people are against his ideas from the start. However, he uses this ideas to further his argument. He takes a research-based topic and makes it more persuasive. I can use this in my writing because not everything has to be neutral. If you write like you have to convince someone your writing can improve.

He uses an abundance of research to showcase the story of race reparations in the United States. He uses personal stories, interactive graphs, pictures and videos to create a picture for the reader. Rather the reader is in disagreement or not, Coates creates an essay that is intriguing and factually sound. I personally liked the perspective of Clyde Ross that Coates includes. It gives the reader a larger perspective on the issue.

Coates creates a narrative of American prosperity based on slavery and racism. The way he presents his ideas allows the reader to see another perspective. I can use this for my writing as I can present an idea and try to change the way people think about it. This essay makes the claim that White Americans did whatever they could to exploit black Americans and reparations are needed. This brings in the larger picture of Affirmative Action and future policy decisions. It goes to show that their is more to every story. Coates does more than present history. He questions the very foundation of a nation and makes the reader think about their perspective.

Common-Sense Understanding

Summers begins her essay with a common-sense understanding. She talks about her personal experience and how much she has spent of skincare. She includes her routine and the multitude of products involved. She then relates her personal experience to that of others. She includes statistics about the beauty and skincare industry. Summers also includes how this relates to age.

The Stakes

The stakes in this case are that of false hope in the beauty industry. Products make people feel like they need it and spend their money on nothing. The other concern she mentions is how many products there are on the market and the prestige that comes with it.

Expert Commentary

• Lydia Berry- an account executive for a famous skin brand
• Kate Black- a beauty industry worker
• Sonora Grant- an aesthetician who has worked at Sephora since 2000
• Beauty youtubers
• Magazines
• Dr. Lynne Zeavin- a psychotherapist 

Skin care in a new way

Summers says, “Who am I when I don’t recognize myself in my own skin?”

She relates it to a bigger picture by discussing how the skincare industry can be harmful and create self conscious buyers. She reminds the audience that people age.

1. I liked the personal interviews and stories that relate to the topic. It is right off the bat and personalizes the technology. People and names helps with a nice flow of an essay. It becomes a story. It reminds me of my first assignment article “everything you know about obesity is wrong”.
2. I like the GIFs. It adds to the theme and looks really appealing. Like the sex garbage article, photos and graphics just make articles look complete. The author picked nice photos, graphics, and gifs for his article. It isn’t obnoxious or anything. He also picks out important quotes and makes the text bigger to add emphasis. The playlists are inserted into the article.
3. I like how the author incorporates his research. The statistics and studies do not seem out of place like the Fast fashion podcast we listened to. It flows and makes sense. The author mixes the information about the artists in with the facts about the platforms seamlessly. It is something I would share with others without being too academic (which turns people off).

I think it was appreciated on Longform because it captivated its readers. I think this was because of its interesting topic and easy to read language. I read the entire thing without be bored. Playlists are something that everyone uses and the author plays to this. “Discovering secrets” and “solving problems” topic is always entertaining. I understand why it is on the “best of list”.

David Foster Wallace writes an essay for Gourmet Magazine about the Maine Lobster Fest. He was given an assignment of covering an event of “fun, sun, and fine food”. If you know anything about DFW, you would know that this is not his usual platform or topic. He usually writes postmodern nonfiction that is often dark. However, he is able to successfully write an absurd, yet captivating article for the Gourmet all about Lobsters (kind of).

Don’t let the topic fool you. This essay is more than a food review. Wallace goes deep into his initial assignment. He questions the ethics behind lobster eating and goes into scientific details. In a way, he kind of ruins something that people enjoy by making the reader feel uncomfortable.

His details are beyond anything I have ever thought possible. He gives the latin names of lobsters, something that could be seen as irrelevant to a Lobster Festival article. However, Wallace makes it work. These details draw readers in. It is almost like suspense. Wallace is known for his long, drawn out run-on sentences, and this text is no exception. The essay features very specific recounts of “slaughtering” lobsters. He talks about how the process of eating a lobster includes murdering it in front of you. He examines different theories of how this affects the lobsters and how people perceive this. This technique of detail helps keep readers. People will keep reading to see what the point is, but also to learn something new. He may also make these metaphors and include these examples to make readers feel bad. It is a use of a literary pathos to create a discussion. The essay itself was actually meant to be much harsher, including remarks about PETA, but the editors at Gourmet took it out.

The beginning is quite long and boring. When he is recounting the history and economic contributions, his tone is kind of negative. In a way, it is almost a nihilist perspective. It is clear that he did his research for the topic as it is very extensive. But did he enjoy it?

No. He did not have a good time at the Lobster Fest. He includes a detailed portrayal of his time at the festival. He says that it is crowded, tiring, and just not enjoyable. This account can be found on page 55.

The real-world application is what captivates readers. He provides a new perspective and relates a small thing to the philosophical nature of humans. It is interesting that Wallace writes such a critique for a platform marketed towards foodies and snobs. However, he comments on all the classes, high, low, and lobster. He says that all people ruin all things. They make special things not special. He dissects tourism and how it relates to this Lobster Festival. He was disappointed with how the experience wasn’t special. In conclusion, DFW remarks that everything is about perspective. It might be how one perceives a lobster or an event. It will be different for everyone, and most of the time people (or tourists) will ruin it.

There may be a lot of twists and turns to this article and it may take DFW a long time to make his point, but I hope to use “Consider the Lobster” for my final assignment. He is able to captivate his readers and create a buzz. He sparked controversy as not everyone enjoyed this text. That may not be a bad thing. I want to take a trivial idea and turn it into a large topic of discussion. I am excited to do so.

Right off the bat, the platform, Medium, allows the author, Elizabeth Royte, to be more creative in terms of presenting. Her heading is a photograph of stairs ,and her title “The Remains of the Night: sex, trash and nature in the city” is placed upon it. This aesthetic is intriguing. Royte is a very descriptive writer to begin with. Her first paragraph perfectly sets her scene. She does a great job of getting someone to want to read more of her work. The website set-up allows her to add in photographs. This makes the reader feel more connected, almost like they, too, are running through neighborhood parks. The pictures do not directly correlate with the story timeline, but they add to the narrative. The content of the story doesn’t match up to the gentle pictures at the beginning. She talks about woods sex and litter, while the reader’s screen is still tranquil. The text often runs over the photograph, continuing its immersive feel. Royte takes breaks from her narrative for further description. She tells the reader all about her trash partner Marie, then gets back to the general topic of sex litter. There are then a few litter advertisements that contradict the earlier beautiful photos. I guess that is the point: to showcase its ugliness. The article also speaks to homophobia and its presence today. The advertisements and LBTQ+ references bring the story into a real-world application. Her reason for writing is like a call to action mixed with a memoir styled narrative. The author wants to share her story while offering a subject that makes one think. The narrative then becomes collective as the trash collectors discuss how to stop the sex litter in the park. It is also important to note that the platform allows the reader to click on the images to expand. This makes the text more interactive. These images aren’t always necessary or relevant but they expand the narrative. Royte includes a map of the park. It allows the reader to get inside the brain of the author and her trash picking group. The author also discusses her own experience with garbage, making the story feel more conversational. Royte is able to establish an interesting and enjoyable article out of something that most people would rather not read about. Her platform also provides versatility in style and production. She uses this to her advantage to take a strange niche topic and turn it into a strong narrative. This combination will allow the essay to reach larger audiences. Surprisingly, I enjoyed this essay. The topic is kind of strange and specific yet the way it was written makes it something I would recommend. There were aspects of the essay that seemed too long and drawn out, but besides that, I hope to use this essay to guide me when writing the third assignment for CM213.

In The Age of The Essay by Paul Graham, the topic of traditional essay writing is dissected. In high school, we learned to write about others’ work instead of producing our own. Personally, I felt like my writing was one of a robot’s in high school, and the author agrees. His text explains why this is. He boils down English literature to a history of valuing ancient texts. He also mentions how American colleges were the first to teach modern English literature. He contrasts real writing with that of high school. It seems like Taylor Reinhart also understands this idea in his article. The comedian’s text is not formulated or inserted from a template. He talks about his creative comedy sketches that use random story-telling to be entertaining. Similar to Graham, Reinhart goes back to the history of standup to find out why it is what it is and why it’s funny to begin with. He concludes that the Minstrel show and comics blatancy create a formula of hilarity. The research of the two essays differs as Reinhart brings in more personal connections. However, the premise is the same. Narratives don’t have to have a set standard. Sometimes, those without it often become more entertaining. Essay-based learning is often banal. As a fan of stand-up (maybe now I know why), Reinhart’s last sentence is one that I truly like. He says, “If stand-up comedy keeps chasing worlds that have yet to be shared, it will eventually be recognized as the art form that I love.” All narratives are art forms if they produce creativity and questions. Essays contribute to stand up’s success. The digital platform of Reinhart’s piece allows multi-media to be shared in the essay. This breaks up normal practices and allows the examples to be appreciated. It flows and is not boring. It achieves the observation, experience and surprise ideas that Graham preaches in his anti-essay essay. 

Jay Rosen writes an article on Pressthink about the basis of journalism. Some may believe that to get your foot in the door, a niche topic can help kick start your career. Rosen says, start a niche news service on a subject “some people care a lot about”. He says “know everything about something.” He gives an example that a journalist has a specific site all about Search Engines called Search Engine Land. It’s a specific subject but it affects many people. Everyone can relate in some way. It doesn’t have to be a news site, Rosen says. It could be a Twitter feed or an Instagram stream, as long as it has research backing it. 

This relates to our podcast. The format and research work together as a team to create content. One would be lacking without the other. He believes that everyone who wants to be a journalist should know the ins and out of one topic. I think this will be beneficial to our podcast. By knowing a lot about our topic, we can ask better follow up questions, relate to the guests and make our content more presentational. People trust you more if you are an expert. I interviewed my groupmates to create more specific information. One voice is not enough. A multitude of interviews creates many opinions that form specifics. 

Rosen also counters this idea of niche journalism. He says that the intended audience for niche journalism is often more demanding. If you are not giving the audience what they came to you for, they will find their niche information somewhere else. In the case of our project, we can use the basis of our topic to be niche: movie pitches about women lost in history. However, to keep the focus we will have to expand slightly. For Barbara’s woman of choice, we extended the podcast to talk about her family. I asked her questions about her national identity. In Devon’s segment, we talked about our grandparent’s involvement in World War II. We strayed from the original source material. However, I believe this was necessary to keep it entertaining. We also added a personal touch to make the flow more conversational. 

Rosen notes how easy it is to begin a project like this. With the new age of instant media, starting from scratch isn’t as hard as it used to be. I was unaware of the accessibility but later learned this with our project, Boss Ass Pitches. With the help of my teammates, we established an entire journalist venture, for free. Rosen talks about promotion, and by having such a specific topic many people will be drawn to our set-up. I told some of my friends about it and they were interested in listening to the podcast, as well as seeing our website. It isn’t news per se, but it is a specific enough enterprise that will draw attention. Jay Rosen’s article helped me understand why niche journalism works and why it doesn’t. I can use this information to make our project the best it can be.

I interviewed a friend and posted it on soundcloud

Here is the link! https://soundcloud.com/jill-shaughnessy-919859393/interview-with-taylor-podcast

The best question Marc asked Terry was:

“do you get something out of that emotionally?”

The best question Terry asked Marc was:

Was when she asked him what its like when comics get together.

Both questions spiraled into good content with a purpose. In Gross’ case that purpose is pure conversation.

The two podcasts have the same topic and are incredibly entertaining. However, the way that this is executed is with different methodology. “How does laughing affect us” begins with two men casually discussing the Nanny. Then the host starts weaving in clips and sound bytes of interviews, examples, and music. The first part is background information about the topic presented in an enjoyable way. After the discussion segment, the research and analysis comes in. The second speaker uses experts and sources to further his idea. It is broken up into a fun section, then academic. The Gaff Box takes a mystery-like approach by inserting clues and information along the way. She uses experts as well to find the secret knowledge of laugh tracks. Although structured differently, both podcasts ask “good questions”. The speakers ask open-ended questions that involve even more questions after. They have purpose and are not just filler information. I enjoyed these podcasts. They made me think a lot about the content (laugh tracks), but also the structure of podcasts.