The Sandra Bullock Trade
The Sandra Bullock Trade
The core issue of writing is catching the attention of the reader. This is especially true when it comes to writing news articles where you have less than a second to get the reader interested in your story. Writer David Brooks uses the famous actor Sandra Bullock to address what he considers a rising problem in society, where people tend to think that career success will grant them more happiness than a stable personal life.
The opening paragraph of the article “The Sandra Bullock Trade” catches the reader’s attention appearing to be sensationalist, but in reality it is only a means to an end; David Brooks catches the readers’ attention and before they realize, they’ve been tricked into reading a thought-provoking article about why we are approaching happiness in a wrong way. He opens up by asking, “Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?” He then proceeds to pretend to ponder over the question, listing some of the gains, Sandra Bullock might achieve from winning an Academy Award, such as, “She’ll make more money for years to come.” and “She might even live longer” - claims for which he provides research evidence. He then completely disregards these positive Academy Award spin-offs and claims that “[…] if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy.” Once again David Brooks uses an unorthodox method of catching the reader’s attention; by insulting the reader, the reader is compelled to read on and search for an apology or at least a clarification as to why he/she has been insulted. David Brooks then elaborates as to why the choice that favors personal relations is preferable to the one that advocates career success, and by the fourth paragraph he has concluded the article, except, as it turns out, the article does not end here. While the article could have ended here, at the fourth paragraph, as just another sensationalist article in just
The core issue of writing is catching the attention of the reader. This is especially true when it comes to writing news articles where you have less than a second to get the reader interested in your story. Writer David Brooks uses the famous actor Sandra Bullock to address what he considers a rising problem in society, where people tend to think that career success will grant them more happiness than a stable personal life.
The opening paragraph of the article “The Sandra Bullock Trade” catches the reader’s attention appearing to be sensationalist, but in reality it is only a means to an end; David Brooks catches the readers’ attention and before they realize, they’ve been tricked into reading a thought-provoking article about why we are approaching happiness in a wrong way. He opens up by asking, “Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?” He then proceeds to pretend to ponder over the question, listing some of the gains, Sandra Bullock might achieve from winning an Academy Award, such as, “She’ll make more money for years to come.” and “She might even live longer” - claims for which he provides research evidence. He then completely disregards these positive Academy Award spin-offs and claims that “[…] if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy.” Once again David Brooks uses an unorthodox method of catching the reader’s attention; by insulting the reader, the reader is compelled to read on and search for an apology or at least a clarification as to why he/she has been insulted. David Brooks then elaborates as to why the choice that favors personal relations is preferable to the one that advocates career success, and by the fourth paragraph he has concluded the article, except, as it turns out, the article does not end here. While the article could have ended here, at the fourth paragraph, as just another sensationalist article in just