Gollapudi Week #3

In reading Safran Foer's Eating Animals, I noticed a different angle than the angle that Heinrich advised his readers to take in his book. Heinrich often mentioned that the best way to get a person you are arguing with to do what you want them to do is to let them belive that that they have won the argument, but then convince them to end up doing exactly what you wanted them to do. In Safran Foer's Eating Animals, I noticed a different sort of approach. Safran Foer tends to use a lot of pathos, in using all that emotionally charged language, tends to look down on the people he's supposedly trying to convince. He uses very powerfu language in trying to make the readers change their ways, yet in doing so, he ends up turning off the readers in their thinking. Safran Foer does make you think about your ways, yet his way of doing so ends up making the reader think "Oh, I'm not going to sit here and be talked down to." Safran Foer didn't make use of "seducing your audience," as Heinrich would say. He tended to be satrical and cynical, to a point that the audience could potentially end up viewing him as pretentious. I think that if Safran Foer were to make more real attempts to identify with his audience, he might be able to convince a few more people to see his viewpoint.