Kolbert's Essay
Kolbert uses language and tone to strengthen her piece, it is a heavy topic and one that needs to be written about. (Similar to Hollars’s bird book) She isn’t the first person to write about an extinct animals, “Meanwhile, naturalists with similar experiences were weighing in with similarly mournful titles: Requiem for Nature, Silence of the Songbirds, The Last Rhinos, Planet Without Apes.” Kolbert has to find ways to stand out from the others and to bring more attention to hers so that people start listening, “it was only after the dolphin was gone for good” we shouldn’t wait until after the animal is wiped out to make a difference but how does one writer convince people to read their piece when there are many written about similar topics? When are people going to listen and start making a difference? We read pieces about the losses we are facing, yet nothing seems to matter. When is enough, enough?
While reading this essay I was astonished at the way the author inserted many different extinctions and losses that the world faces. She pulled in many scientists in varying fields to demonstrate her knowledge and credibility about the topics. Our world is suffering and many of us don't notice until it is too late. Kolbert wrote that the Golden toads were in an abundance the first year and then disappeared the next. The essay is very alarming and brought many extinctions to my attention that I didn't even know were extinct. My question is: When is data and research over used? How does it change the way readers feel about the essay? Does it lose the intriguing notion with the science? Does Kolbert stray too far from the focus of the Golden toads or does her various inclusions make her more compelling?
-Danielle
Hey Danielle! I agree completely that Kolbert’s piece is very alarming and that it addresses critically important environmental issues. Like you, I also believe that we typically read very persuasive essays like Kolbert’s and then we don’t follow through or make any significant changes in how we live our lives. So, kudos to Professor Hollars for being the exception and changing his diet after reading *We Are the Weather!*
ReplyDeleteGreat set of questions here! To address the first one, I believe that Kolbert comes very close to overusing research in this piece. She has to walk a very fine line in this essay. To establish her credibility, she must rely on numerous scientific experts and report their findings. However, if she goes too far down this rabbit hole, she risks overwhelming readers, like me, who do not have strong backgrounds in science. If she were writing this piece for, let’s say *People* magazine, there would be far too much scientific research here. However, her piece is much more suitable for readers of *The New Yorker,* I believe.
Kolbert’s extensive use of scientific research and her unique ability to make this research accessible to lay readers leads me to place great confidence in her writing. I’ve seen her book *The Sixth Extinction* in bookstores, but I had not read any of her work prior to reading this essay. From this essay alone, I would feel confident that *The Sixth Extinction* is based upon sound scientific research and that it is written in a way that I could understand.
In that same vein, I was shocked to learn in the podcast that if cows were a country, they would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This is such a powerful way to present this information! In contrast, if we were told that cows emit X metric tons of greenhouses gases per year, my eyes would glaze over, and the data would not have much of an impact. Maybe I’ll skip that Big Mac today.
I believe Kolbert made a wise decision in beginning her essay with the story of the golden toad. It’s a story that we can relate to, and the golden toad’s rapid extinction is very alarming. She has now engaged us, and she can proceed to present additional scientific research. For me, at least, I don’t believe that she strays too far from the story of the golden toad. In my view, the additional research that she presents helps to explain why species such as the golden toad have become extinct.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, these are some thought-provoking questions you posit here! I wholeheartedly agree with your observations. Standing out as a writer is paramount, but it is even more crucial when writing about relevant and important topics such as species endangerment. I find myself agreeing with you and Scott, in regards to not acting on the alarming material we read, which is an unfortunate but often rectifiable reality.
In terms of your first question, I would say the amount of research and data included in the piece was nearing the limit of my capacity to attribute meaningful understanding to the piece. More than likely, this is due to my innate inability to succeed in the fields of math and science. However, I would also go as far as to say that the amount of data present in Kolbert's piece was too much for a "general" audience. While the inclusion of the data definitely increases credibility, as Scott said, there's a fine line between too much and too little data.
I think, generally, a large amount of data in a piece can overwhelm readers, but in some cases it may motivate readers to look for outside sources or further reading. I don't think the essay is less intriguing with the inclusion of data. While I may not excel in science or know much about scientific topics, I still find it interesting and worth reading, especially because of the topic of endangered species.
I don't think Kolbert strays too far when offering other examples and data in addition to discussing the Golden toads. I think these inclusions strengthen the piece more, and offer more variety and more potential "stakes" for the environmentally-conscious reader. I, for one, was lucky for already knowing about the extinction of the Golden toads.
(I accidentally posted my comment with the wrong account, so I'm doing it again.)
ReplyDeleteDanielle,
Great post, these are some thought-provoking questions you posit here! I wholeheartedly agree with your observations. Standing out as a writer is paramount, but it is even more crucial when writing about relevant and important topics such as species endangerment. I find myself agreeing with you and Scott, in regards to not acting on the alarming material we read, which is an unfortunate but often rectifiable reality.
In terms of your first question, I would say the amount of research and data included in the piece was nearing the limit of my capacity to attribute meaningful understanding to the piece. More than likely, this is due to my innate inability to succeed in the fields of math and science. However, I would also go as far as to say that the amount of data present in Kolbert's piece was too much for a "general" audience. While the inclusion of the data definitely increases credibility, as Scott said, there's a fine line between too much and too little data.
I think, generally, a large amount of data in a piece can overwhelm readers, but in some cases it may motivate readers to look for outside sources or further reading. I don't think the essay is less intriguing with the inclusion of data. While I may not excel in science or know much about scientific topics, I still find it interesting and worth reading, especially because of the topic of endangered species.
I don't think Kolbert strays too far when offering other examples and data in addition to discussing the Golden toads. I think these inclusions strengthen the piece more, and offer more variety and more potential "stakes" for the environmentally-conscious reader. I, for one, was lucky for already knowing about the extinction of the Golden toads
Danielle, great post and great questions to go along with the reading. You raise a good point that there are a lot of these pieces on climate change and extinction, so how do we differentiate ourselves from others to make our post read by many, but also effective in creating change? My answer to that can be lumped in with another of your questions: When is data and research over used? I think in pieces such as these you don't want to saturate the piece with just data, but the author's credibility and the pieces chances of promoting change, or hope, or sometimes hopelessness, are increased when the paper is backed by data and research. I think Kolbert did a great job of taking the reader through several issues that deal with climate change to depict the scope of the issue and why some scientist or climate change enthusiasts have to grapple with finding a sliver of hope to keep pushing even when the odds seem so greatly stacked against them. I think the golden toad section in the beginning was a good introduction to the piece and the other examples provided such as the ice caps and the coral reefs did make her piece more compelling. I don't think this essay called for a lot of flowery or poetic line writing, because this is serious business, and the collapse of our world isn't beautiful. The people pushing for change in the face of what can look like insurmountable adversity, however, is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteDanielle, you have a lot of interesting questions regarding Kolbert’s essay. I think for the most part, Kolbert does an excellent job of weaving “science” in a form that allows for a reader’s enjoyment. For me, this piece almost felt like a horror/doomsday story where the “worldbuilding” (her facts) was in depth enough for me to believe whole heartily in what she is saying. I think she’s able to accomplish this because she takes these giant leaps between true scientific theory and just a basic explanation. For example, she discusses how as the artic heats up, dead and decomposing plants will thaw and release tons of carbon, making us even warmer and it all gets worse. This makes sense and is easy. I don’t know why carbon traps more solar radiation, I don’t understand the actual process of carbon being released, and more to the point, I’m not even sure if I know what carbon is. The good news is, I don’t have to understand any of this, just the consequences, which Kolbert does a great job of explaining.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that I thought was interesting was while reading this piece, I almost had to cringe away a few times. Sort of like, “yeah I get it, we’re doomed, dead/dying, and sadly not doing enough”. I’m a reader whose literal grade in class depends upon my reading of this essay and still she almost lost me a few times. It’s funny too because I love all sorts of sad, dark and gritty stuff (bring on the walking home in the rain Hemingway), but maybe not this “world is ending” stuff. I wonder if that’s why a lot of people have trouble with environmental essays. It’s scary. Below the equator countries are being ravaged, our forests are all being turned to ash, and everyday another Golden Toad disappears. It’s heart-breaking stuff and so desperately important to act and I think that must make it hard to read (or at least add to it). None of this is to say we should be watering down essay’s like Kolbert’s, but maybe we should talk about how do we get everyone to face these facts and not cringe away?
Thanks Danielle for the insightful post and great questions! This essay brings up the really important topic of climate change and the author's personal experiences with learning about the effects of climate change. Many people have written about climate change in the past, and many more will continue to write about it in the future, and yet people still won't hear the message. It seems the key to writing an effective essay on such a popular topic is to make it personal and attainable for the reader.
ReplyDeleteIn Elizabeth Korberts essay, she starts by taking the reader on a vivid journey, putting the reader into the shoes of herpetologist Marty Crump, “On a stormy night in 1987, an American herpetologist named Marty Crump was getting ready for bed when she heard a tapping at her door.” The readers start by jumping right into this story. The readers build empathy as they learn about these golden toads through the experiences of Crump as she discovers them. As Crump becomes more invested in the toads, so does the reader, and thus, the effect of the loss of them becomes greater for the reader as it does for Crump.
Korberts uses this similar structure as she moves on to talk about the melting Arctic and coral bleaching that is occurring. I will echo the thoughts of Sam, I think that this is reaching the limit of my capacity for research in the piece, especially when considering that it was published in The New Yorker and not a scientific journal. For the considered audience, this piece didn’t need to include more research. I think with the combination of telling stories and researched facts, this story does a good job of being intriguing and feeling reliable and grounded in truth.
I find the title intriguing, How to Write About a Vanishing World. I feel like I didn’t get a good answer to the prompted question until the end. At first, the title seemed like it didn’t fit, but the ending wrapped it up nicely. You just do it, you share the stories and the facts, and no matter how dim the reality is, you don’t try and put a positive spin on it, you just do it, you write.
I really enjoyed this essay as well and I also really like your questions! I'm not quite sure if you can over use data and research when it comes to a topic like extinction because I think it's a huge deal not only for humans but also for the planet as humans are typically the cause for the large amounts of animals and insects and plants that go extinct every year. I think the more data and research that you have with a topic like this is just shows the utter devastation that is caused to their habitats and just how many species end up going extinct every year or are on the verge of extinction unless something is fixed or changed.
ReplyDeleteI think it changes the way readers feel about the essay because instead of the author just telling people with no factual evidence or research to back it up the readers won't really take it that seriously but if there is a lot of evidence and stuff to back up the claims then it truly is alarming to the reader. I also don't think that it loses its intrigue with the science as I think adding it just makes the argument stronger that something needs to be done in order to save all of the species that are at risk of being wiped out for good.
I think by just having the Golden Toads as her argument wouldn't have made it as powerful but by adding in all of the others it just shows how many different kinds of animals are going extinct at such an alarming rate so I think her inclusion of others made her essay better than if she left them all out and just had the Golden Toad. I also liked Chloe's point that no matter how grim something might be that's just the facts and sometimes that needs to come to light for things to change in a positive way.
Hi Danielle, you use a lot of good arguments in your post and you have some very interesting questions you ask. I think this story posies a lot of moral and yet intriguing questions that have been making me think a lot about extinction, too. So much has been lost in this world lately and to continue to write about it and make it known is one thing, but to make it interesting and appealing for readers to read is another and I think that brings up a good moral discussion.
ReplyDeleteBut based on your questions about data and research being overused I think there is a fine balance in presenting your data in a much too overbearing way, especially at the beginning of pieces. I think background knowledge is key, and then gripping the reader with some emotion will keep them interested and THEN I think adding the data might be captivating.
Research and data can be overused, but I think taking the time to pick out the necessary information and adding it intricately into the story would be just fine. I think Kolbert did a good job balancing that. It was at times a little bit data heavy but I think that was the nature of this piece and that is who she is as a writer. Data and information is her familiar as a writer, therefore I think if a good narrative is established any story can be captivating no matter how much information is used.
To answer the last question, I think the Golden Toads was a great set up at the beginning to captivate us as readers and draw us into this narrative of extinction among animal species that we might not even be aware of- hence building an emotional connection to the story. I was honestly sad reading this story. I usually listen to podcasts about global warming or watch documentaries about it, so to read a short story about it reiterated its relevance and urgency in my life. That part in the story that says by 2030 the Arctic Ocean will essentially have no ice left me in a moment of shock, and had me thinking about where I will be in 2030. This story had the level of emotional pull that maybe even a good romance would have because it left me thinking afterwards, just like a good movie or novel would.
Great post Danielle!
ReplyDeleteIn research-based non-fiction, data should only exist to support the prose rather than be it's sole focus. I think Kolbert is cognizant of this in opening up her essay with a personal narrative rather than begin with a barrage of facts. In another non-fiction class I took with Stephanie Turner, we read a book that struck a perfect balance between personal narrative and scientific data. The book was called Evicted by Matthew Desmond, a professor of Sociology who underwent a journalistic investigation on poverty and cycles of homelessness during the 2008 recession. He describes the destitute circumstances of eight different families with emotionally visceral detail. The book is also filled with facts and statistics that show these terrible situations as a common national pattern. Not only did they support his argument but they helped him pace his narrative more dramatically; reading about these facts after a cliffhanger made the suspense in each story that much thicker.
To answer your last question, I don't know if the focus was ever supposed to be on the Golden Toads. The title doesn't reference it at all and the conclusion makes a light mention of it. I think it was just a cute anecdote that hooks the audience before transitioning to a more dreadful discussion on the current state of ecology.
Hey Danielle & previous repliers!
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion so far about one big Debbie-downer of an essay. To quote Robert’s post, our “literal grade in class depends upon [our] reading of this essay,” but with all “this ‘world is ending’ stuff,” it feels almost impossible to manifest the motivation to continue (both this reading and general life). Kolbert’s story here is nothing new, as those of us 19-20-somethings have grown up surrounded and inundated by the notion that our world is dying. Catastrophes like the BP oil spill (2010) and slow-burns (pun intended) like the overuse and subsequent evaporation of the Aral Sea and the shrinking ground beneath the polar bears’ feet (paws?), we are dishearteningly familiar with the grim fate of our world. We can’t even go to the zoo without finding out that our favorite animals are dying out, that rainforest devastation half a world away is killing chimps and rare birds and dozens of other precious species. Growing up in this narrative, unable to tie our own shoes—let alone stop greedy CEOs from pillaging shrinking habitats—the idea of fighting for change now feels like a moot point.
My anxiety skyrocketed while reading Kolbert’s essay, reverting me back to the little girl who was scared the world would end before she could even grow up. Having always wanted to be a mother, I was terrified that, even if I didn’t see the end of the world, my children or, optimistically, my grandchildren, would still have to suffer it. Before I could drive a car, I was already grieving for the planet and my children who might inhabit it. Reading Kolbert’s extensive array of discouraging stories—from dying coral reefs to iceless summers in the Arctic—only revived these fears. (I actually had a dream last night about trying to selectively breed different species to survive the warming world…)
And worst of all, she doesn’t leave us with any answers.
For all the information she includes and knowledge she bestows on the fate of the world, Kolbert gives us little in the way of hope. She admits that even the calls to arms by environmental scientists (on big and small scales) are usually accompanied with a sense of dismay and impossibility of recovery. The doom-and-gloom is overwhelming, but the do-what-you-can mentality is apparently a waste of time. Kolbert leaves us as unsure as ever, taking away our one medium of solace in the whole thing, any hope of blissful ignorance.
Thanks for the questions, Danielle!
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of previous commenters had interesting points. I like Robert's notion that the facts Kolbert uses act as a kind of "worldbuilding" in her doomsday narrative. That's a really interesting idea that I wouldn't have come up with, but it makes a lot of sense to when considered. That way of considering facts and data makes them feel less overwhelming in a way. I also would have to agree with Nora and Robert about the anxiety inducing aspects of this essay. I know the point of the essay is not to make you come away feeling good and content, but it does seem like a common narrative in essays recently, that fact that the world is slowly (maybe not so slowly anymore) dying away and we have little time to reverse the damage. It's terrifying to consider the future when it's in shambles and there's literally nothing you can do about it as a 20-something. Yeah, being informed is always good, but what am I to do with this information, facts, and stats as a 22 year old English major? I won't be solving the answer to climate change anytime soon, so it feels very debilitating.
Moving away from my rant, let's turn to Danielle's questions! I did really enjoy the antidote about the golden toads in the beginning of the essay. It was captivating, understandable, and compelled me to keep reading. However, once we moved away from that story and were then given similar examples like the coral reefs and and melting sea ice, I less so wanted to read the essay. Some scientific concepts go over my head so it's hard to be fully engaged in it. I know that I should know that the release of carbon and methane is bad, but I was never great at science so I'm left not being sure why. I did find myself skimming some parts when they were thick with science jargon. So, maybe there isn't too much data and such used in the essay as much as me not really being the target audience. It seems to me that this is an essay more for science-inclined individuals (hence the title "How to Write about a Vanishing World" which seems geared to someone who may be in the field of writing about, or at least considering, this sort of thing).
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteGreat questions! I personally feel as though data and research being included in an essay can feel over used once it gets to the point where that information over powers the story that is being told. I think that a large influx of scientific data can, in this case, feel too much like telling as opposed to showing. As with any sort of telling information, I think it best when that information is embedded into the story in a manner that doesn't take away from what is being shown in the essay.
I think that so long as the scientific data is included in such a way, it does not necessarily lose the intriguing notion of the essay.
Great post and questions Danielle! I found this piece very shocking and eye-opening while addressing important, urgent issues that need to be taken care of and be made more aware of.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think the data and information given here is almost overwhelming and I think a lot of people may consider it overwhelming when they’re faced with all the problems and extinction we’re given in her piece. I think if she focused on the golden toads and maybe one more problem it would have a better focal point for the readers, especially those who don’t know as much on the subject, to focus on and consider as a problem as well as how they can help fix the problem. I think the overuse of information and examples, though very informative and important to share, may turn off readers who maybe didn’t want to be preached at and overloaded with information on how many different ways the Earth is dying.
The intriguing notion of science in Kolbert’s essay loses it’s in the face, face the facts shock when we’re presented with an overwhelming amount of information that while related to us and we should be aware of it, loses the luster and focus of the problem of the extinction of the golden toads when we’re also presented with problems like global warming and the coral reefs dying etc. The extinction of the golden toads seems less of a problem when we’re faced with the idea that the place where we all live is dying and who knows what will happen if something isn’t done.
Personally, I wanted to know more about the golden toads, and we lost that by the end of the piece and I think Kolbert strayed a bit too far from them if her intent was to inform about them. It’s okay to relate and bring in another example or two to compare and give context, etc. but if the idea was to inform readers about the golden toads and have that be the main focus it didn’t work too well, by the end you weren’t thinking about them anymore and you’re left wondering what happened to them and what the true focus of the piece was.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteYou came up with some great questions. The first of wondering how research might be overused in an informational type reading is interesting. The truth is, as many have commented, research and data are amazing tools to reassure the reader and create a clear picture for them what a certain situation/scenario may look like, especially over time. I feel Kolbert's approach specifically can be pretty technical in terms of using so much research to report, but I do see how this is useful in creating a full rounded picture for readers as to why and how this extinction took place. For a general audience, I think this reading could have used a little less data and research and in place included extensive detail or perhaps if it didn't change the meaning of the piece more opinion/conclusions of the author in order to connect them with the reader. Afterall, even in highly informational readings as this, connecting with the audience and displaying your personal voice is just as important. How credible will you be to your readers if they don't understand who YOU are. This is what I think of after reading Kolbert's piece. I was really intrigued by her ability to tie in more than one scientist/perspective as well. This was super key in importance to me. When evaluating anything scientific such as this multiple perspectives and research are definitely needed, so I admired her ability to involve more than one scientist and their findings.
I found the essay to be very interesting but if it hadn't been assigned for class I'd have to say that as a casual reader this might not be an essay I would just read because of all the information. I feel that often casual readers are seeking to learn but also put in minimal effort. If Kolbert were to address a more casual audience she may pull back on the bombardment of research and more artistically state the situation and the repercussions that have resulted in an animals extinction. Although, I have to say it's really opinion though, because even though I would say I'm a casual reader most of the time I actually really enjoyed all of the information I received in this reading!
Altogether, I feel Kolbert focusing on the Golden Toad but tying in various inclusions added depth and multiple avenues of understanding. The way she went about including other examples and comparisons was beneficial. It did have the ability to create a sort of tangent or pull away from the focus of the essay, but I think Kolbert went about this sophisticatedly and used these inclusions to support her main point instead of distracting from it.
Hi Danielle! I think the science can be very important, especially in essays like these. I think there can be such a thing as too much science information, I’m guilty of it. In the past when I’ve written academic papers, I have overloaded the paper with sources and research and left out my own thoughts on the idea. It’s important that your idea is the main piece and using evidence just to back it up or add context, but if your words are all just other people’s then what is the point of writing that essay? I think Kolbert did a great job with this ratio of science vs her words. I understand what other people have said about it being too overwhelming, however I actually think how Kolbert did it was really effective. She painted a great picture and I truly believed all of the points she made. Having sources to back up her ideas gave her the credibility this story needed.
ReplyDeleteLanguage and tone are SO important to any piece, as we have discussed so many times. Making sure that what we are saying and how we are saying it match up how we need it to so we can convey our message is one of the biggest pieces, and I think that has been hammered into all of us by this point in our careers. There is certainly a certain type of tone brought on by talking about endangered animals, and how the author uses the tone seems to be really important to how readers take the message and roll with it. I also loved how Kolbert talked in her essay, and how it seemed to stand out in its messages and tone. I know for me, I struggle with tone, and I want my own writing to stand out to others, so reading these writings where we can critically look at tone I know is very helpful for me personally.
ReplyDeleteI think when the numbers begin to overtake the words is when one should be concerned. If you are asking an audience to look at facts and think about them on their own while they are trying to read your writing, they get overwhelmed and don't want to look forward at it. When things become overwhelming, people don't want to keep reading them. I enjoyed Kolbert's voice and writing, and I think tying in other things helps with impact, we all just have to be careful with how far we are walking away from the lines we try to draw. I also think it is a bit up to preference. Some readers do like that connection, the facts, the numbers, while some don't. So I do suppose a lot of that line is drawn when we think about who the target audience is, who is reading it, and who is responding to it. There is certainly even more to think about when we bring that target audience aspect into an analysis.