The Omnivore's Dilemma (15,18,19,20), They Say I Say (6-7)

Chapter 15 of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" (Pollan) detailed the life and diet of a simple hunter-gather, struggling to obtain even the least amount of food required for sustenence. With a common dependence on domestication and agriculture, going out into a forest to only hunt or pick up any meal for more than a short given time seems outlandish; there would be far less food to eat, and that meager amount takes much more energy to find, becoming much less rewarding overall. Besides, it could be poisonous! Many fail, however, to take a good look at the food they eat themselves, sprayed multiple times with chlorine, arsenic, and other chemicals, then packed with enough preservatives to cover a kitchen table. Ironically, those who naysay the hunter-gatherers "have only in the last century or two regained the physical stature and longevity of their Paleolithic ancestors."

Chapters 18, 19, and 20 describe the experience of hunting from the neutral perspective of one who has never done such thing before. Killing a wild pig, gutting it, and preparing its meat caused disgust in Michael Pollan, yet had he seen the way bacon and meat delicacies are made, these feeling would probably had been eased. The smell and sights upon preparing meat cause discontent, yet are part of eating it; the closer something is to human, the less a human will want to eat it, and the more revulsion they will feel in doing so. In addition, the hunt itself is entailed: a rush of adrenaline, fear of killing AND fear of missing the shot, and a host of other mind-shattering factors come into play. This is not bacon from the freezer; this is a living thing, that can run, defend, and feel.

Parts 6-7 of "They Say I Say" (Graff) describe why, and how best, to implant a naysayer (opposing opinion) into an academic paper, and how to best format such to suite a target audience. If one continues on with a single point throughout their paper, it will create a repeatitive and overall boring result, dissuading readers. Planting an opposing view entices outsiders to read (conflict always draws attention), and can help prove the arguement (if this paper can prove a naysaying thesis wrong, then it, and its arguement, must be superior). In addition, having an outside audience helps the formatting; if one group is meant to read, then the language and style can be restructured for them foremost; science papers should be suited for fact detail, and impartiality, while say, a blog might be for personal view and observation. It is not enough to have information; others must understand and comprehend it, caring bout and absorbing the big "so what."