After reading The Moral Crusade Against Foodies I must say I was a little unclear about the point of his argument. I do believe that some food writers tend to use rather visceral language that can seen over the top. I do enjoy readings with great details and imagery, but it is not always desired to read about an animal being slaughtered and murdered in a barbaric manner. However, sometimes that type of reading is necessary for the author to make his or her point to the reader. Many of the readings we have done in class have been rather favorable in my mind. I enjoy reading about personal experiences, and I love when history is added to the text as well.
Yes some foodies definitely are and or come across as smug and arrogant, attempting to eat the most wild, expensive, and questionable meals all to brag. Eating such foods may make them feel more superior as not everyone is brave enough to attempt to eat such bizarre foods. Yes when I read and watch foodies I judge them on their word choices and bias'.
I don't particularly care for Myers' writing style either, I found it dense and hard to follow. He is, in my mind as bad as those foodies he writes about. I'm not familiar with the foodies' writing he references but I do know that he writes rather one sided about these people. Pointing out their faults but making no effort to point out why they are a success, or what they need to work on in his opinion. I was not persuaded by him in the least, what he brought I agreed with to a point, but for the most part I was not given new information. I was not given persuasion just a writer's heavily biased negative opinion on some rather successful people with no facts to back him up aside from his own thoughts. I may have been won over if he took into account other opinions and other writers words on the matter. So in this writing I feel he is the same as those pretentious foodies he so seems to despise.
W10: Synthesis
12 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment