The sections are well organized by the writer, but at the same time I think she takes so many sentences and paragraphs to explain the object of her subject. For instance, at the beginning of her writing, she talks about the Great Salt Lake and gives a lot of information about it; she explains the location of the Great Salt Lake with all its details, its features, and the environmental affects that act on the lake. In my opinion, that kind of descriptions could make the context a little bit boring. After that, she clarifies the image of the River Migratory Bird Refuge and birds that this refuge contains. She talks about the refuge and how the rising waters of Great Salt Lake can destroy this refuge.
The writer creates dramatic interest through these building blocks by using dialogs. I think these dialogs have the great outcomes to make the writing interesting and can bring the readers attentions.
I do agree that the dialogs are definitely the thing that is helping the immersion in this story.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the blocks, I read some very strong and definite changes in the orientation of the text in between some paragraphs. The meaning, the style, the content, everything changes abruptly at each section.
Do you think that this is too confusing or that this is adding to the clarity of the subject with a strong separation between each argument against nuclear weapons?
Yes, I totally agree with you by saying is too confusing when she uses strong separation between each argument. At the beginning of my reading, I thought that maybe I could not get the ideas of her subject, but I tried to read it over and over and it kind hard to understand what her main object against nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe against the machist vision of the world that prevails in the american society ?
ReplyDelete