Coates goes into his essay full force. He doesn’t try to backpedal his words or appease both sides; he’s very aware that at least someone out there is not going to be happy with what he’s saying, even if he tries to make it “better.”  Coates used legitimate, proven facts such as numbers as well as quotes from different individuals to make his point. Even when some of the information might have been a bit skeptical, Coates pressed forward with the utmost confidence in his words, which, in return, gave confidence to the readers that he knew what he was talking about. The topic was not easy to talk about by any means. When writing, if an author sounds unsure then the reader may begin to question his or her information. If the speaker can’t show that they believe in the idea that they’re sharing, then why should a reader be expected to believe it? Coates relies heavily on the positioning of his topic throughout the essay. It’s all about the presentation for him. He relies on facts and photos alongside his own words to make the article worth reading. 

Moving forward with these thoughts in mind, I’ve really looked into how I can approach my essay with a similar strength. I’m writing an essay about therapy animals, both emotional support therapy and therapy for other kinds of disabilities and disorders. While it may not be to the same extent as Coates’ topic, this is still something which has received a great deal of backlash. The conversations surrounding support animals are all different. There are people who look at the system as an excuse to take a pet somewhere in public while others swear by the system, that they wouldn’t be as mentally stable as they are without their support animals. Moving forward into my essay, I would keep in mind Coates’ confident writing style. I need to present the facts but not try to appease anyone. I have an opinion on the topic and it needs to be heard. If no one ever shares their opinions then how are we expected to move forward and think outside the box?

Summers begins the essay by discussing the idea of skincare from a perspective that nearly everyone can understand: the fact that it can be incredibly expensive and sometimes impossible to get your personalized routine right. She went into statistics about sales from stores like Sephora and Ulta for those of us who may not have understood the severity of the expense of skincare products. The topic became very easy to understand and it became more familiar with each of the examples she provides about makeup and skin care routines.

From there, she easily slides the topic of taking care of your skin into one we don’t always associate with the beauty market. She asks the question, “Who am I when I don’t recognize myself in my own skin?” This is an important question that touches on the stakes of this issue because it comments on societal views of beauty and how we define ourselves, especially as we age. Is a woman less of a woman because of the laugh lines which adorn her face? Do her wrinkles lower her value as a person or as an individual? She uses specific examples and professional statistics and opinions in order to further expand on the commentary of beauty as a negative concept.

What makes an essay great? Lots of things, is the best answer I can give. Its too wide a range to truly provide an exact answer. However, to get a little more specific, I looked at the 7,382 word article “Why Women Aren’t Welcome On The Internet” written by Amanda Hess in 2014.

1. The fact that Amanda Hess opened with a personal story

I’m a big reader and I’m even bigger on beginnings. If I’m starting to read a new novel, I typically give it a chapter or two to reel me in before I decide to put it back on the shelf (it’s why you’ll typically find me reading on the floor in Barnes & Noble with a stack of books beside me before I make my way to the register). When it comes to essays and online articles, I typically give the writer the first paragraph or two to wow me. Hess engaged me from the start with a twitter experience which sounded all too familiar to me. As a female, her story was relatable and made me want to know what she had to say.

2. The bluntness of the real examples she used.

Hess didn’t sugarcoat her examples. She didn’t give the basics of it or cover it up by simply saying “an unnecessary comment with words I’m not comfortable repeating” as some writers may have. In her eyes, someone else already said it on the internet. She had every right to repeat the words to make her point and she would repeat them what was said so that readers would have the exact truth of the situations she was referring to. When someone targeted Alyssa Royce with a very detailed comment about murder and rape, Hess noted the exact phrases used. 

3. Hess’s bold statistics

Hess strategically used font size and bold lettering to point out certain statistics throughout the essay, making them more noticeable as something that clearly needed to be read. One statistic which she made stand out was about the number of threatening or explicit message maculine & feminine usernames received. The shocking number was 100 vs. 3.7. It’s probably something I may have accidentally overlooked in such a long article but was able to easily see initially and easily find again after finishing reading.

I think that longform essay writers can appreciate Hess’s work because despite its 7,000 word length, it was never repetitive or boring. Her topic was consistent but the approach was constantly changing whether it was via real life accounts or factual evidence of her claims. She has a talent for grabbing the readers’ attention not only with an interesting and bold title, but with an essay that was engaging from the start.

Graham’s idea of an essay is that its purpose should not be to state an argument and prove a point, but rather to simply present an idea with facts. It should be even more compelling than a well-thought out argument. This form of essay writing is much different than your “typical essay” AKA – it’s not boring and doesn’t follow the tried-&-true ideas of rhetoric. Graham’s idea also states that essays are not strictly about literature, they encompass a wide range of topics. This essay about stand-up comedy proves Graham’s point on that matter.

Graham states, “Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing.” This essay on comedy is convincing because it provides examples of the statements made and makes the ideas surrounding these statements interesting. Like, the story about the meth dogs and dinner with Grandma―its wild and crazy yet the way he writes it, we believe it. It’s about strategic wording, not argumentative statements. Both The Age of the Essay and this comedy essay capture the audience by using outside information not to back up their ideas, but to inform their ideas and their readers. The digital platform helps to increase the interest level and believability of the comedy essay due to the inclusion of video clips for readers to watch or listen to. You can reference anything you’d like but to be able to actually include something like a video in its entirety within the essay bring your topic to a whole new level. This is different from Graham’s approach to The Age Of The Essay because Graham only includes written evidence. While both did an incredible job, and the comedy essay essay clearly matches Graham’s style, it’s easy to see that the research methods varied for each. Graham tended to use research with words that matches his own or gave room for his own statements to grow even more and Reinhart tended to find examples of his statements in real life, not just someone else saying the same statement.

The Remains of the Night is a more effective essay because its takes a topic which most people are uncomfortable with and runs with it. She dives deeper, beyond where common sense tells us to take a step back. In a moment where someone else might say “ew,” walk away and forget about it, Royte looks closer and asks “why?”

Sex garbage is not a comfortable topic by any means. Its cringe-worthy and taboo to say the least, so why is Royte’s article so engaging? Well, the article is as uncomfortable as the topic. It doesn’t justify anything but instead it takes this idea of trash and opens your eyes to why trash may be there? Is it really because someone was too lazy to walk ten steps to the right and put it in the trash can or rather is it because someone was too scared to walk ten steps to the right and put this particular thing in the trash can? Is it because someone wanted to mark their territory? Is it because someone wanted to let others know that they’re not alone in some strange way?  

To most of the world, trash is trash and it is annoying and unsanitary when it is left on the ground, especially in a beautiful park. To Elizabeth Royte, this particular trash has a method. This article was not written to explain why we should or should not leave trash lying around and it wasn’t written to convince anyone of some higher purpose. However, it does provide an interesting what if that makes something disgusting seem a bit more meaningful. 

Looking more closely at this article, one may also wonder why it was posted on this particular website? Why medium and why not somewhere else? Well for one, medium is an internet platform meaning its more likely for readers to come across the unusual article. Two, Medium allows Royte to insert pictures in an unusual way into the article. Not only are the integrated among the text, but they are integrated into the test, changing the background of the page on certain paragraphs and therefore giving different meaning to different sections of the essay. Finally Medium is a huge site known for a wide array of topics. The about page on the website literally says, “Medium taps into the brains of the world’s most insightful writers, thinkers, and storytellers to bring you the smartest takes on topics that matter. So whatever your interest, you can always find fresh thinking and unique perspectives.” Basically, its a website that approaches important ideas in a weird way. Sex garbage really having a deeper meaning of marking a space for inclusion or noting a space of fear of rejection? That’s an unusual topic with a deeper and important message about how today’s world works. It fits in perfectly.

Does this platform at all change the meaning of the article and make it more impactful? My answer is yes, definitely. If this article were posted on a space like Buzzfeed it would simply read to me as an interesting and uncomfortable piece. However, because it was specifically posted on a website which dictates that its writers are insightful about matters of importance, the article takes on the persona of being an important part of society. The platform gives the deeper meaning to the article beyond Royte’s words. The fact that its published here means that it has something to say about the world we live in, an important commentary on life. It’s crazy how one small detail, such as where we post something, can change what light someone sees that thing in.

Wallace is known for writing very different pieces. He goes at things from a nontraditional and surprising angle―a detail I was unaware of when I began to read Consider the Lobster. For myself, reading this piece was a whirlwind experience. It was honest and harsh about the experience of death from an animal’s point of view―completely unexpected. Wallace was able to capture his audience because he went at the experience from a different perspective from other writers who typically produce work for the fancy food magazine. In the previous 100 years of Gourmet publications, never once had an animal’s perspective been used to make a case almost seemingly against food. Whether it was a positive or negative experience for readers―and most of them were negative―it made an impact and gave reason for a reaction. 

When looking at the market for food magazines, the buyers are typically readers who are interested in opinions and different viewpoints on food. The issue here is that those readers expect a certain viewpoint which endorses food and they tend to get agitated when it comes to certain types of criticism. 

Wallace gave great background information. He went into the essay knowing what he was talking about. He provided  strong historical facts, including the point that lobster did not begin as a “rich person food.” He gave facts on a lobster’s nervous system. When you look at the details included in the article, it’s quite obvious that he’s done his research and is well-versed in “lobster history” so to speak.

I point out this particular fact because typically when you see an article like this, its an angry individual writing from an emotional and uninformed perspective. Wallace does not come across as someone with a strong opinion just ranting on some random platform, he’s an intelligent individual and a well-known writer whose piece has been accepted and published by Gourmet magazine. 

He goes at the piece from the point of view of science and ethics. To the rest of the world, the Maine Lobster Festival is a celebration of lobsters and their delicious qualities. To Wallace, it’s a celebration of torture to fulfill a human desire. In his mind, there’s an entire world of problems with this celebration that apparently no one else sees important enough to make conversation out of. So why take this fun event and put a dark evil light on it? Wallace refers to the murder of these sea creatures as “irksomely sentimental,” almost making it appear as though he doesn’t want to have this opinion but can’t help the way he feels. He talks about how some cooks set a timer and leave the room until it’s done, almost like they feel it too but don’t want to acknowledge it. I don’t think that his piece was meant to ruin the festival for anyone, as it clearly did not stop even Wallace from eating the poor creatures, but I think it was meant to open our eyes to the fact that not everything is as clean cut and easy as it first appears. Sometimes there’s an underlying consequence that we don’t consider.

How did the first episodes of these shows layout a format for the program and convince listeners to keep listening? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ref, You Suck – Nik

The podcast opens with the host walking around, describing his surroundings as a place with no greenery, a few chain motels, and what he calls “someone’s idea of a mall” in Secaucus, New Jersey. The host then peaks the listeners interest by saying he has a hunch involving a “crisis we find ourselves in.” The host does not say what the crisis is right away, teasing the listener. The host then reveals what he’s doing in the city neighboring New York City: he’s visiting the NBA’s replay center, a place where referees watch replays and relay the proper call back to the referees at the actual game. Still, one minute into the podcast and the listener still doesn’t know what this particular episode is about or how the host will spend the next 39 minutes of the episode. After a quick music break the host introduces himself as Michael Lewis. As he’s about to explain what the show is about Lewis interrupts himself and says “give me just a minute to get to that.” The listener has likely become eager to hear what the show and particular episode is about to the point that Lewis has them locked in. He’s done a good job of teasing the point of the show by giving description where he is and telling the audience that there is a crisis. By not telling the audience what the crisis is, they’re more likely to keep listening. Lewis then taps into audiences knowledge of the NBA by playing various clips of player feuds with referees. By doing this, the listeners can get excited because they know the players being mentioned and some may even know the particular encounters that are being sampled into the podcast.

Heartbreak – Gigi

   The first thing you hear is an add for stubhub, which would normally be annoying (cmon everyone hates commercials), but they use this as a pretty smooth segway into what they’ll be talking about: pop music. The hosts, Nate Sloan and Charlie Harding begin by talking nostalgically about past relationships and heartbreaks and how music can even now bring them back to that time. The two men discuss both the literal music (major and minor chords, rhythm, etc.) as well as the feeling these iconic pop heartbreak songs evoke. They keep their audience interested, they discuss three songs from different subgenres of pop so there’s something for everyone to enjoy. However, Sloan and Harding talked mostly about the technicalities of the songs without really relating it back to their personal experiences which doesn’t really help to keep the audience who aren’t musical experts enthralled. Their saving grace is that everyone has experienced heartbreak or at least heartache and is able to relate to the feelings discussed in this episode of Switched on Pop.

Welcome to Millenial – Hannah

  Megan Tan, the host of “Welcome to Millenial” sets the stage of her podcast as being a heartfelt throwback of the times she used to go school supply shopping. She tunes in to a phone call with her mother as she describes her daughter Tan as “practically being born on the first day of school.” Pomp and Circumstance plays in the background as she recalls getting her college diploma. Although what is known as typically a cheerful song, Tan says she felt the pressure of not knowing what she would be doing with her life hit her hard at that moment. “The thing no one teaches you how to be a millenial and really navigate your twenties.” Podcast includes funny news clips about the horrors of millenials. Includes sound bytes of her conversations with friends, family, driving back home, etc. It all leads up to a climactic ending where the promise of her moving back home to re-evaluate her millennial lifestyle comes to a crashing halt due to her mother moving out and leaving Tan with a disheveled home and single father. Similar to the “Ref You Suck” post, the listener also does not know necessarily what this episode will be about as they listen for the first few minutes. Both podcasts use teasers to pull in their audience members. It is an effective way to keep people listening and willing to tune back in for more episodes.

The Alibi – Kapri

The podcast opens with a recording of a phone call, setting a very mysterious scene for the rest of the recording. I think it’s interesting that, similar to “Welcome to Millennial,” Sarah Koenig, host of The Alibi, starts talking about high school as well. However, hers is a less happy story. It involves the murder of a teenager, Hae Min Lee, and what she was doing for 21 minutes after school when she was supposed to be picking up her cousin. She goes into the basic ideas that immediately come to mind of what a high school senior could be doing after school and who she might have been with. Essentially the podcast goes through the stages of asking questions and finding possible answers, with the reminder that our host is not technically an investigator. She also incorporated a bit of humor at the beginning. She wanted to make a point about the fact that this case was in 1999, before everyone was texting and on social media 24/7, and that the teenager she was trying to find an alibi for, Adnan Syed, wasn’t questioned until 6 weeks after Hae went missing. To prove how hard it is to remember exactly what you did 6 weeks ago without digital reminders, the host questioned a few teenagers and their answers were often that they couldn’t even remember if they’d gone to school or had a skip day. The podcast gives exact facts about the murder case and tells it in a story-like manner, not just as a presentation of facts, and it came with a twist. It wasn’t just an unfinished case with the possibility of the wrong man being arrested. There was reason to believe that the lawyer who had presented Adnan had botched the case purposefully to get more money. The interviews that followed told several opposing stories and the case was never truly resolved.

Response – Kapri

    I enjoyed how Gigi looked at how the Heartbreak podcast  was able to pull everyone in with their experiences and the mutual feeling of heartbreak and heartache. While my podcast was very different, the host of The Alibi was also able to pull in her audience through a similar story-telling method.

The truth is, no one really wants to read something or listen to something that just puts together a bunch of other people’s words. People want originality. If you are simply quoting something or someone else, why should readers come to you? Why shouldn’t they simply seek out the main source? After all, secondary sources have the tendency to misconstrue ideas and modify quotes. Why take that chance when they could access the real deal?

Interviews are great― they are first-hand accounts of stories that can really help reinforce what you are trying to say. However, you need to be saying something in order to have an interview reinforce your ideas. What point do you want to make? What do you want the world to know? No two people are alike, which is what makes the world so spectacular. No one else can contribute what you can, so don’t do your job halfway by only providing information from other sources. Don’t forget about your own voice. 

In addition to that, if you are going to say something, you do need to be prepared for any turn it may take. If you know a little bit about a lot of different things, you become a more well-rounded and overall interesting person. Readers and listeners are more interested in what you have to say when the words coming out of your mouth are your own thoughts and opinions, not just something you heard or read somewhere else. An interview is simply not enough anymore because it tells someone else’s story. You need to be able to tell someone else’s story and you own story and in addition to that, you should have facts, statistics, and other forms of research at the ready that may back up your topic. 

When we first began this process, my team had a large array of brilliant ideas but the main issue between them all was the connecting factor. How could we connect so many topics not only to each other but also to a number of different resources? When we decided on commitment, we realized that it was a very large topic. It was a bit daunting but at the same time, it meant that there was a vast universe of resources available at our disposal. 

We centered our topic of commitment through four main viewpoints of travel, relationships, college, and self-care. Those topics streamlined our podcast so that we had a stricter idea of the resources we needed. While many of us did incorporate interviews into our research, we also used archives, blog articles, scholarly articles, novels, and statistics as well. Our group really incorporated every form of research and in the long run it has helped a lot with making our podcast not only more informed, but also more interesting with its overall variety.

Variety is why interviews are not enough anymore. Writers and hosts truly do need to know everything about something in order to actually discuss it. If you can’t provide a large amount of detail, you probably shouldn’t discuss a topic.

It’s tough starting up something on your own. Whether its a podcast, a blog, a movie― it’s never easy. So what do we do when we’re not sure how to get going? We look at other people’s work to see what works and what doesn’t! On that note, I looked at Radiolab’s podcast, Space, during my research when starting my own podcast. Here’s a few stylistic and research-based details that I really enjoyed and plan to incorporate in my own work:

Stylistic Point 1: The Intro! Their combination and staticky words and music completely grabbed my attention. I’m a big sci-fi and comic movie fan and their intro reminded me of something I might hear at the start of Guardians of the Galaxy or The Space Between Us. It’s very enticing. Ona more general note though, since my podcast doesn’t have anything to do with outer space, the jumbled words and overlapping music create a sense of mystery. You want to know more about what’s going on and how those words tie into the story that’s about to be told.

Stylistic Point 2: The Sound Effects! The inclusion of sound effects is kind of odd and I didn’t quite get what was happening at first but it fit so nicely with the moment and really increased the emotion in those parts.

Research Point 1: The Interviews! The bits and pieces of recording from people the host encountered at one lookout point created a need to know more. It gave depth to the podcast and made it sound more like a story or a movie than an interview. 

Research Point 2: The Variation! The interviews with a regular woman telling a love story and an astrophysicist telling the scientific details of space created a completely different setting than what I had initially expected and it kept it interesting because it wasn’t a million versions of the same thing. It was two completely different stories that wove into each other seamlessly.

My opinions on the best questions asked when 2 interviewers are put together:

Terry’s Best Question

I think that Terry’s best question was when she asked Marc about the difference in the conversations he has with friends vs the people he is interviewing and the different topics he feels comfortable in approaching. I think that this was the best question because it brought up the discussion of the lines he can and cannot cross with different audiences. Terry could relate to this question so it really seemed like she pulled it from something she might expect someone to ask of her. Marc’s response was also great because he started to answer and then said “I know what you’re doing” prompting her to ask his permission for her to ask the question. It showed a lot about both of their characters, both the fact that she might ask permission and the fact that he was still willing to answer.

Marc’s Best Question

At one point Terry is telling the story of some basketball players on the street who were singing some lyrics from a song she wrote and Marc asked what the lyrics were. This maybe be a random thing to pinpoint as “Marc’s best question” but I have 2 reasons as to why I think this. The first is that it was a random, completely unplanned question. It was a follow up based on a story he hadn’t expected to hear and it was a question that wasn’t entirely relevant. My second reason is Terry’s response: she immediately says she doesn’t remember and then admits to lying, saying that she doesn’t want to share. Of all the things that she’s shared and may not have wanted to share, she draws the line at a lyric she wrote that a few strangers were singing. I think that this told the audience a lot about Terry and how she views her own creative abilities. It’s hard to own up to your own work. It’s easy to own up to unchangeable facts but its hard to take credit for something that someone else may or may not like or have a strong reaction to.