When I first read this book a few years back, I found boring. Mainly, because I went into the book with prejudice, and that due to me judging the book. This time around I went in with a different view, I entered the book with an open mind to his argument, which really made all the difference. I can't say I love the book, but I can totally understand what argument he's trying to make. Which I believe is a case for vegetarianism.
Although Foer claims that the book isn't a case for vegetarianism, I think that's just a rhetorical device. He's explaining his life choice while asking questions of why humans eat meat. Even though he's exploring himself and explaining why he doesn't eat meat, in the long run, I still think it's a case for vegetarianism, and he does it well, by telling us that he isn't writing a book to argue for vegetarianism.
By saying that, he lets our guard down. We are less likely to criticize him when we think he's not trying to persuade us at all. Which works in his favor. So we are more likely to hear what he has to say, after hearing the news that he won't try to persuade us. So when he then tells us the faults of eating meat, it really hits us, because we're not defended as we would have been due to the letting down of our guard. Good persuasive work, it'll be interesting to see if he keeps this partial tone later on in the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment