Assignment # 3 F.D.
Professor: Debra Keates
“What Means the World to You”
What is important to someone varies from person to person. These things can be displayed in different forms and approached in various ways. This is seen within O’Brien, Stout and Fraser’s essays. O’Brien understands what inspires human connection and he manipulates the truth of his story in order to capture the attention and respect of others. He justifies his decision to distort his story based on the impact it has on the reader. For every author, O’Brien argues that the aim is to get one’s point(s) across; to bring attention to what matters the most to them. Regardless the category, this is done by expressing one’s objective with feeling and a sense of importance. In Caroline Fraser’s, “Rewilding North America,” she uses convincing evidence to prove to the reader that reserves and corridors promote the well-being of wildlife and humans alike. Similarly, Martha Stout has a biased opinion. Stout sets out to demonstrate to readers in “When I Woke Up on Tuesday Morning, It Was Friday” that counseling is important for clients who have experienced trauma by sharing individual client stories. The way people define truth and the information they provide can determine how others will evaluate the story. There are different ways to connect to a reader. The writer’s objective and the audience both influence these decisions. O’Brien’s storytelling method may involve embellishments that bend the truth rather than adhere to it. Had he authored either Fraser or Stout’s essays, the objective may have been the same, but the style would likely have been quite different. Within their respective essays, Fraser and Stout’s definitions of truth can be observed and interpreted. Both authors cite massive research projects, specific cases and general statistics to communicate their theory. It would appear, that unlike O’Brien, both Fraser and Stout are more concerned with providing support for their story and/or objective. O’Brien did not bother with ensuring that his facts were correct, but rather that the message was clear. Facts and evidence, however, are very important components of Fraser and Stout’s “truths”. Fraser relies on scientific evidence to gain attention from her audience. While O’Brien may not disapprove of this method, he may see it as unnecessary. As she writes “In the United States, for example, deer-vehicle collisions alone occur up to one and a half million times each year, costing some two hundred lives and $8.8billion annually; collisions also imperil the survival of twenty-one endangered and threatened species”(123). Another example of Fraser’s tendency to provide explicit scientific evidence is when she describes Fraser writes about the Banff Project scientists and their impact on the concept of Rewilding as they collected “footage from cameras mounted on the underpasses [which show] bears and mountain lions approaching the wire cautiously, sniffing, and peering around” (123). The animals questioned the underpass at first, just as any creature would do when coming upon something unfamiliar. Shortly thereafter, “most of them burst over or under the wires, galloping off” (123). O’Brien would say that Fraser’s method of getting attention to her theory would be a great approach, however, if all that evidence is needed then his way to get through to people would not be relatable because to his own because he believes in simplicities and getting through to people with tantalizing and basic approaches such as emotions to capture the attention of people and his ability to tell a story and his way of articulating the facts or details. Regarding O’Brien’s argument that a piece of writing or a story should create an emotional connection, Fraser’s writing falls short. Fraser does make some attempts to build a feeling of empathy for the animals whose lives are positively impacted, as she writes “in 1993, Pluie lost...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document