“No Wonder They Call Me a Bitch” – Ann Hodgman
(The Norton Sampler p.77)
Read the selection and write a one paragraph response to the following questions.
1. Cite three specific examples of Hodgman’s descriptive imagery that you find to be particularly effective.
I find mostly all of Hodgman’s descriptive imagery about K-9 food choices to be rather repugnant. She describes canned dog food with high quality meat as a “lumpy, frightening, bloody, and stringy horror”. Those words used in the same sentence, under any circumstance, are effective to the extent that you should never ingest such a thing. The rancid description of the “dark, dark brown, surrounded by gelatin that was almost black” meat in the Mighty Dog Prime Entrée that Hodgman refused to try was equally effective as the description of the meat in canned dog food. Both descriptions persuaded others to not eat wet dog food. Her encounter with dry dog food was a much better experience but is still not advised. Hodgman stated that Purina O.N.E. dry dog food was “pretty palatable”. This was effective because even though it tasted better, it contained 100 percent more fat. The packaging said Purina O.N.E was the optimum nutrition choice for a dog. When is 100 percent of fat ever healthy for a dog, or anyone for that matter? Never. The moral of her story is that packages are deceiving and look appealing to try, but once actually eaten, it is a whole other story. The descriptions on dog food packages are anything but truthful. Labels lie.
2. What do you think Hodgman’s purpose was in writing this essay? What overall message/meaning do you take from the essay?
I believe that Hodgman’s purpose in writing this essay was to be satirical and provide a message about the curiosity of humans. Hodgman’s is a food critic who has written about human food in Eating Well magazine, satirical pieces in Spy magazine, more than forty children’s books, and several cookbooks. I do believe that Hodgman’s did eat some of the dog food she describes but she humorously adds in remarks such as “can you fry it?”, pertaining to Gaines-burgers dog food. You wouldn’t need to fry a cheeseburger for your dog. Her purpose is to be satirical about the hype of over-exaggerating the packages and labels on dog food that companies do in order to boost their sales. It is a money game. The better dog food sounds to humans, the more they will want to buy it for their dogs. Humans are curious about everything, especially things they would not normally try. I think we can all agree that the message of Hodgman is to say that advertisements are deceiving and human curiosity influences what we feed our pets.
(The Norton Sampler p.77)
Read the selection and write a one paragraph response to the following questions.
1. Cite three specific examples of Hodgman’s descriptive imagery that you find to be particularly effective.
I find mostly all of Hodgman’s descriptive imagery about K-9 food choices to be rather repugnant. She describes canned dog food with high quality meat as a “lumpy, frightening, bloody, and stringy horror”. Those words used in the same sentence, under any circumstance, are effective to the extent that you should never ingest such a thing. The rancid description of the “dark, dark brown, surrounded by gelatin that was almost black” meat in the Mighty Dog Prime Entrée that Hodgman refused to try was equally effective as the description of the meat in canned dog food. Both descriptions persuaded others to not eat wet dog food. Her encounter with dry dog food was a much better experience but is still not advised. Hodgman stated that Purina O.N.E. dry dog food was “pretty palatable”. This was effective because even though it tasted better, it contained 100 percent more fat. The packaging said Purina O.N.E was the optimum nutrition choice for a dog. When is 100 percent of fat ever healthy for a dog, or anyone for that matter? Never. The moral of her story is that packages are deceiving and look appealing to try, but once actually eaten, it is a whole other story. The descriptions on dog food packages are anything but truthful. Labels lie.
2. What do you think Hodgman’s purpose was in writing this essay? What overall message/meaning do you take from the essay?
I believe that Hodgman’s purpose in writing this essay was to be satirical and provide a message about the curiosity of humans. Hodgman’s is a food critic who has written about human food in Eating Well magazine, satirical pieces in Spy magazine, more than forty children’s books, and several cookbooks. I do believe that Hodgman’s did eat some of the dog food she describes but she humorously adds in remarks such as “can you fry it?”, pertaining to Gaines-burgers dog food. You wouldn’t need to fry a cheeseburger for your dog. Her purpose is to be satirical about the hype of over-exaggerating the packages and labels on dog food that companies do in order to boost their sales. It is a money game. The better dog food sounds to humans, the more they will want to buy it for their dogs. Humans are curious about everything, especially things they would not normally try. I think we can all agree that the message of Hodgman is to say that advertisements are deceiving and human curiosity influences what we feed our pets.
No comments:
Post a Comment