Yao Xu-The Search for Sweets

I just finished reading the Search for Sweets article and I find it interesting. Though at first when I read about DDT, the different molecules, and chemical names, I expected another scientific article with a bunch of long chemical names I would not be able to pronounce. However, after discovering that the article is about finding a substitute for sugar (and recognizing the word "Splenda"), I wanted to know more about this process. I noticed that the article did not contain a lot of long quotes but whenever there were quotes, it was mostly for a humorous effect. I'm not quite sure if it is due to my prior knowledge about the chemical compounds, like sucrose, that made this article less confusing, but I understood the experiments and could visualize it too. I think Bilger's analogies and similar examples really helped me comprehend the article. I also liked how Bilger gave a sense of who Zuker (besides being known for the guy who did sensory experiments) by listing at the end of the article that Zuker collects wines, takes racing lessons, etc. tied all of these qualities together by ending the article with Zuker speeding away.

Comments

[Amber Cleave]

The two articles for thursday are very different than the articles which we read for today. The article by Bilger seems to be more of a profile on Sugar, rather than Zuker, the person. Although we get a sense of Zuker, we get more of a sense of Sugar- the background is mostly on sugar, such as it's evolution over time, as well as it's scientific properties and evolution. I guess I should say the article is a profile of sugar and other artificial sweetners. One thing I liked about this article was its cyclical aspect. It begins and ends with Columbus and I thought it tied the piece together very well. THe other peice on Caesar Milan is very good and very different. I really liked how descriptive the author was with describing the dog fights between Caesar and the animals he works with. I could visually see them going on. I also like how the author compared Caesar to the woman who works with the autistic children. The comparison allows for a very concrete and varied scene. THrough the psychologist, we can get a better picture of Caesar and the work he does. The ending of this article was very good because it is ambiguous and powerful. The reader is left wondering what happens, yet is firm in the belief that Caesar has everything under control because that is the person who he really is- one who prevails in all situations. I really enjoyed both of these pieces.

[Yao Xu]

I also loved the ending of the Gladwell article because the silence not only shows that Milan is the "Dog Whisperer" but conveys that he has authority over people too. Though I respect the amount of research and details in explaining why Milan is good at what he does, I thought that the mid section of the article concentrated too much on that topic and deviated my attention from what happened before the background materials and hindered me from getting to know more about Milan as a person.

[Lindsey Hess]

I think that the profiles we read for Thursday were not necessarliy as focussed on certain people as many of the other articles we have read so far. It was definitely a change of pace and a little bit different style of writing than I feel like we have read so far. I found it interesting what Scott was saying about the Dog Whisperer being a backwards profile. I think a lot of the best stories out there come from plans for other stories. The best part of this writing I think, was the ending because it leaves the reader wondering what is going to happen next and I think it is always good to leave the reader wanting more.

[Veronica Lewis]

This article seemed more of a scientific profile than a typical humanistic profile. The large chemical names in the piece made it seem intimidating, in addition to the massive amounts of information it presented. However, I found the article very informative and interesting, nonetheless. I appreciated the fact that he took something so common, as sugar, and tore it to pieces through analysis. In my opinion, the best pieces are the ones about things people do not really think about it, but ultimately learn so much about once it is profiled.

[Pierce Nahigyan]

Yes but, well...alright, what about this? What if it's really just useless? What if no one really wants to know, or cares, about the subject of who can make a better sugar? What if what the author is really doing is making a paycheck by researching something that has nothing to do with anything, manipulating us, the gentle readers, into thinking that this guy is telling us something we should know?

Well, no, I don't think that, necessarily, but this article did raise a question for me: where's the bad articles?

We've been pretty lucky this quarter--at least, that is my estimation--in terms of what we've been allowed to read. Scott's given us a great list and these two books are chock-full of stuff I actually DO give a shit about. (I'm reading Trina and Trina on my own time and I have no problem with that.) But there's got to be some journalism pieces out there that ARE just for the paycheck, that don't really matter.

I suppose that's the way it is with all art forms: novels, comic books, plays...and of course we're reading the good stuff so that we can follow suit. But still, wouldn't it be interesting to read something that is, actually, trashy? I suppose the Enquirer or the Sun might fit that label--though they're more newspaper-y than anything else.

[Marites Yao]

I agree with you that not all of the writtings are interesting, and that some writtings are done merely for the paycheck. What is interesting to the readers depends on whether the subject or person profiled is interesting to both reader and writer, and how the writer presents the story. Without a passionate subject, then things are lackluster. Each person has a different perspective.
Perhaps this piece was done merely for the paycheck but then again perhaps it was an interesting area that Bilger could not fully grasp on how to present the information in an interesting way.