In January, 2000 Laura Fraser wrote the article “Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian” for Salon magazine. Fraser is an author published in several national magazines including The New York Times, Vogue, and O: the Oprah magazine. Attempting to reach an audience of either new or long term vegetarians/vegans, Fraser discusses her journey of changing her vegetarian lifestyle of 15 years to quitting entirely. She happened to write this article in the beginning of the year while most are advancing their new year's resolutions. Perhaps she was trying to convince newly vegetarians or vegans not to continue with their resolutions, or maybe it was all just a coincidence of timing. While Fraser is trying to dissuade her audience from being vegetarians,
…show more content…
The author, who was a vegetarian for 15 years, sounds like she’d be a credible source, right? First of all, Fraser states “Like most people who call themselves vegetarians, I wasn’t strict about it”(par 1). Even though Fraser says she was a vegetarian for 15 years, does it really count if she cheated? Being a vegetarian means not eating meat, but Fraser clearly states “After failing to convince myself that pancetta was a vegetable, I became a pesco-ovo-lacto- pancetta-vegetarian, with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy about chicken broth.” (par 2). That does not make her a vegetarian, just a picky eater. Fraser is trying to convince the audience not to be vegetarian just because she decided not to be, but it sounds like she was hardly, if ever, a …show more content…
Using humor may appeal to some audience members; however, some may find it unprofessional and untrustworthy. While using comedic relief can be a good way to lighten the mood of the paper, it can also cause the readers to question her logic. While statements like “I had to decide between meat and men” (par 5) add some humor, it overall sounds unprofessional, and weakens her point. The audience, with people such as myself might find the humor amusing, but I think too much humor can distract from the main claims. Fraser comes across very sarcastic as if she is mocking everything she is saying, which got highly confusing at points. By stating “there was a fair amount of political pressure to be something in those days. I was faced with becoming a lesbian in order to prove my political mettle. I had to decide between meat and men, and for better or worse, I became a vegetarian.” (par 5) Fraser is saying the only reason she wanted to be a vegetarian was because she wanted to be special, and also to not be a lesbian. Vegetarians or vegans would most likely have a hard time reading this considering the claims that Fraser makes. Fraser mentions that she would kill a cow and recycle the byproducts by wearing leather. This statement would not go over well with most, if not all, vegetarians or vegans. Along with statements about willingness to kill cows, Fraser makes very confusing statements and other references to how
The author, who was a vegetarian for 15 years, sounds like she’d be a credible source, right? First of all, Fraser states “Like most people who call themselves vegetarians, I wasn’t strict about it”(par 1). Even though Fraser says she was a vegetarian for 15 years, does it really count if she cheated? Being a vegetarian means not eating meat, but Fraser clearly states “After failing to convince myself that pancetta was a vegetable, I became a pesco-ovo-lacto- pancetta-vegetarian, with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy about chicken broth.” (par 2). That does not make her a vegetarian, just a picky eater. Fraser is trying to convince the audience not to be vegetarian just because she decided not to be, but it sounds like she was hardly, if ever, a …show more content…
Using humor may appeal to some audience members; however, some may find it unprofessional and untrustworthy. While using comedic relief can be a good way to lighten the mood of the paper, it can also cause the readers to question her logic. While statements like “I had to decide between meat and men” (par 5) add some humor, it overall sounds unprofessional, and weakens her point. The audience, with people such as myself might find the humor amusing, but I think too much humor can distract from the main claims. Fraser comes across very sarcastic as if she is mocking everything she is saying, which got highly confusing at points. By stating “there was a fair amount of political pressure to be something in those days. I was faced with becoming a lesbian in order to prove my political mettle. I had to decide between meat and men, and for better or worse, I became a vegetarian.” (par 5) Fraser is saying the only reason she wanted to be a vegetarian was because she wanted to be special, and also to not be a lesbian. Vegetarians or vegans would most likely have a hard time reading this considering the claims that Fraser makes. Fraser mentions that she would kill a cow and recycle the byproducts by wearing leather. This statement would not go over well with most, if not all, vegetarians or vegans. Along with statements about willingness to kill cows, Fraser makes very confusing statements and other references to how