assignment 2-2: reading for purpose, audience, and context

Due: Wednesday, September 21
Format: leave a comment on this post
Length: two or three paragraphs

This assignment will ask you to start forming a sense of Maira Kalman’s purpose, audience, and context in her visual-verbal essay “Back to the Land.”  First, re-read the essay.  For this second reading, try to develop your observant stance into a more advanced, critical stance. To help you read critically, look for the following in “Back to the Land”:

  • A pitch. Kalman’s essay is an argument; it presents information to make some sort of case, even if that argument or case is never stated explicitly.  As you read, look for language that reveals the position or positions the essay seems interested in having you adopt.
  • A complaint. Her essay is also a reaction to some situation, some set of circumstances that she has set out to address.  To help you understand another person’s writing, it can be useful to figure out what caused the person to write the piece in the first place. Look for language that reveals the writer’s starting point. If you can find the position or situation he or she is worried about and possibly trying to correct, you will find it much easier to locate the argument (or the position the essay is asking you to accept).
  • A moment. Lastly, Kalman’s essay (like all pieces of writing) is a response to the world conditioned by the writer’s particular moment in time. In your attempt to figure out not only what a piece says but where it is coming from, history is significant. When was the piece written? (Nov. 26, 2009)  Where? (The New York Times blog in the “Opinion Pages” section) What else was going on at the time that might have shaped the writer’s ideas and attitudes? You don’t have to do hours of research for every essay you read, but on the other hand you don’t want to ignore the context of a writer’s moment.

Now, write two or three paragraphs explaining your sense of what Kalman’s purpose, audience, and context (her rhetorical situation) might be. Your post could address some of the following questions, which might resonate with the critical reading guidelines above.

  • What in the world around her is motivating Kalman to create this piece?
  • What is it about the time she is living in? What historical events or changes are shaping how she sees the world?
  • How does the way she sees the world fit with the ways she sees/imagines her readers? Does she want to draw their attention to some issue or problem they might not be noticing?
  • How does Kalman relate to her readers? Is she confrontational, caring, friendly, or… ? How do you get a sense of her personality or attitude towards the audience?
  • What do you know about Kalman’s audience? Do they need any special knowledge to understand what she is saying? Do they come from a certain area or country, share certain values, or subscribe to particular beliefs?
  • Why does Kalman try to accomplish her purpose through this combination of handwriting and photography?
  • How do the photographs add to or take away from the effectiveness of Kalman’s text? Do the visual elements of the text help her accomplish her purpose? How?
  • What thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors might Kalman wish to change in her audience? How would she like to see her readers respond to the piece?
  • What other kinds of changes might she be seeking?

Keep pushing yourself to find and cite specific evidence from the text as you write this post. Avoid unsupported claims.

It is always possible that Kalman did not consciously choose to do some of the things you observe in her essay, but for now assume that she did and consider how this helps you understand her text.

“The Victory Garden movement began in 1917 in response to World War I food shortages. Since food had to be sent abroad to troops, families were encouraged to grow their own fruits, vegetable, and herbs.”  — from Everyday Health

13 thoughts on “assignment 2-2: reading for purpose, audience, and context

  1. Pitch: Kalman’s argument was to suggest an healthier eating process to younger student and teach them family values that our fore fathers created.
    Complaint: The problem Kalman has with the way we eat is that its making us unhealthy and causing many health problems. Fast food restaurants are making profit off of us because we are needy and greedy people. We want our food fast.
    Movement: Kalman looked back in time after WWI and found out that families were growing their food and trying to strengthen their morals by doing so. Eating together, setting the table, working in the garden and eating healthy were all aspects that contributed to the way life should be.

    Kalman’s audience was towards the younger generation, reaching out to them so that they can become more healthier and understand that fast food is just what it says fast and quick food. Kalman was addressing the older generation to guide the youth through these steps so that they make take it home with them and give their family a different environment in which they can adapt to. The purpose of this article is to propose different eating strategies to not only the youth but also fast food restaurants or other dining places. This is to inform them that organic food is tasty and better for the body. Kalman wants to inform people of many ways in which they can get this nutritious food, it can either be grown or brought. The main concept I took from this article was to never subject yourself to an easier,quick and fast meal that can cause many problems.
    I think that the context was more if words than pictures to interest and catch the eye of her audience which is the younger generation. It was to show them that food can be grown and it can be good. As shown in the article many people create ways for themselves to get a nutritious meal and try to share others who may not know about being healthy. Kalman showed different cities, towns and schools who practice this technique and live their lives according to how our fore fathers once lived.

  2. Ke’Air Noel
    English 101: Introduction to College Writing
    Instructor: Rachael Sullivan
    Assignment 2-2: Reading for purpose, audience, and context
    September 19, 2011

    Taking a more critical stance on Maira Kalman’s “Back to the Land was very easy after rereading the essay and assessing it in a more critical way. Kalman’s pitch is that Americans are not eating healthy. She proposes that we go back to our forefather’s ways of growing and eating foods in their more natural state. Her complaint is that as the world becomes more modernized, fast food restaurants are taking over and leading Americans away from the more original way of eating, which is growing foods without canning or using pesticides and preservatives and without fatty contributions to meals. This is allowing the fast food industry to make billions of dollars per year, and in return, the health issues in Americans are on a rapid rise. Finally, Kalman’s moment is very modern, November 2009. The United states is quickly developing new technology and formulating quicker more time efficient methods of doing just about everything. At the same time in the essay, Kalman’s moment as a flashback is around the time of WWI when our forefathers and their families grew foods, cooked them, set the table, then ate together as a family.
    On page 82 of “Back to the Land” Kalman has a blurry photo of people walking. This makes it more realistic of just how fast the people are walking, which is a representation of how everything in modern times is done so quickly. The photo on the consecutive page shows a fast food stand on the street. People even like to eat fast! If they’re walking fast and in a hurry that need a quick meal as well. I believe that the author likes to accomplish her purpose through combining photography and writing because words give explanation, but photos help people relate and depict the story/explanation that the words are trying to tell. Adding photos are very effective, due to the fact that people can relate to them.. For example, on pages 84 and 85 there are photos of McDonald’s breakfast sandwiches. Everyone in any country can relate to McDonald’s In America especially, there are at least 4 of these establishments in every city. Everyone knows that McDonald’s id quick and tastes good.
    Kalman is clearly taking a very passive- aggressive approach towards trying to get her readers to change their bad eating habits She is fully aware that her audience is Americans because her essay was published in the New York Times. It is safe to assume that roughly ¾ of Americans eat fast food, so that’s exactly who she is reaching out to. On pages 100 and 102 she shows beautiful fresh vegetables which she also calls beautiful. By showing these veggies she is enticing her audience and making the veggies look appealing to draw the audience in. She also has photographs and talks about children learning to grow fresh crops and how to cook them at school. By using innocent children, the audience is also drawn in. If they can do it, why cant adults? Essentially, by using all of these enticing methods, Kalman is trying to get her readers to re-evaluate their way of eating and ultimately changing it to a more healthy and more original way that will be pleasing to our founders who started it all.

  3. The purpose of Back to the Land is to remind readers of the agrarian society that our forefathers have founded and believed in. Kalman is pointing out that as time has evolved, so has our traditions. We have become accustomed to daily fast food because we have become a fast paced society. She is implying that there is and has to be a McDonalds around every corner because our society needs food fast, and they cannot stand to wait for fresh farmed and healthy food. A lot of people today do not realize what traditional values are lost. Her motivation is to reach out to people and let them know that simple organic farming is still attainable.
    Her audience is leaning towards the younger generation of America, more so than the older generation. Although the older generation may live a variety of lifestyles, they are the ones who can teach the younger generation how to live the traditional life and instill the old ways. Because most people are already accustomed to the fast paced traditions of today, she believes that younger people are easier to teach because they do not know of anything else yet. Her hope is for children to work on the farms and inhabit the simplistic lifestyle. In the text, there is a quote that states, “ if you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.” Kalman’s use of children’s pictures and child like handwriting may also suggest this. The context of this piece is based upon the Back to the Land movement, which is a movement advocating the food growth on one’s own small space. This is her opinion of how people in America should live. Kalman’s emotions in this piece evoke my emotions because she points out the differences in how people live because of the food they eat. For example, she thinks that an old woman is “ a bit out of her mind” because she drank soda her whole life. On the other hand, the children who work on farms, are “pessimists, but happy ones.” This piece represents how Kalman thinks that our society should still be a traditional agrarian society and suggests that one day it could be again.

  4. I believe the audience in Kalman’s piece titled “Back to the Land” is adults in general. To be more specific is adults with children. I think this because the essay talks a lot about children and how they need to change the way they eat and how families will have more time together just as they did hundreds of years ago. Parents encouraging their children to eat better will allow them to live a longer and healthier life, along with bring the family closer together. Another group of adults I believe she is targeting is people who live in the city. I think this by when she says “I live in a pretty fast city, with fast talkers, and fast walkers, and fast food.” She is trying to say that more people are more likely to eat fast food rather than organic food since that’s all they have time for, yet she believes there is a need for people to find time or a way to buy healthy food, rather than fattening foods.
    The world around Kalman is of people in the city. People eating fast food every day and seeing the effects fast food takes on people. For example, she and most other people in the U.S. know that America is on the urge of becoming obese. Children are already becoming obese. The more people are eating fast food, the chances increase of becoming fat or even obese, along with other risks such as heart problems and diabetes. I think she is starting to notice this more and more which made her think about the choices she was making and how she will change her habits. In the piece she talks about how much better organic food is than fast food, and she’s right. Some fast food may taste better but it has a lot more bad effects on your body compared to natural grown, organic foods.
    Through Kalman’s handwriting and photography, she tries to accomplish her purpose. She uses photos that fit with the text to make it more persuasive in a way, more so to get her audience thinking about their lives and choices they are making. By using pictures of children rather than adults, it makes her piece more powerful especially to those adults reading who have children. She gets those adults thinking about their children and how they want them growing up living their lives healthy and close to each other, rather them eating fast food everyday putting themselves at risk and not talking to the people who care so much about them. By using her handwriting rather than using a font off the computer helps her relate to her readers by showing that she’s not better than anyone else and she is going through the same changes she wants others to go through. Photographs help her point by leaving some interpretations up to her audience. The photos also can be used as words unspoken. For example, when she writes, “Should we? Shouldn’t we?,” above the picture of the car in the field. She’s really asking if we should eat the cow or not, to a farther question may be if we should all become vegetarians or not. The pictures help us think about what Kalman is writing about.

  5. Rachel Hegland
    Rachael Sullivan
    English 101

    “We are what we eat” is a common phrase that everybody has heard at one point or another. Yet, we as people of today’s society never really take that phrase into consideration. Why should we? I was taught to never bite the hand that feeds me. However, Maria Kalman’s piece Back to the Land provides sufficient evidence and a strong argument as to why Americans need to take a step back and look at what we are consuming.
    Maria Kalman’s pitch is simple; she provides the argument on the very first page. “Thanksgiving. Since the beginning, Americans have connected the bounty of the land and the goodness of life to democracy. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison-farmers all- envisioned an agrarian society. We have since evolved into a very different kind of society.” Maria Kalman displays Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison in her statement because those are historical figures that we as Americans look up to and idolize. She uses history to remind Americans of the initial reason of why this country was founded. She also reminds us that they were all farmers alike. She sets up an ideal scene and then uses the comparison of then and now to prove her argument of how Americans have become deluded with a sense of quantity over quality.
    Maria Kalman wrote this in the year of 2009. She depicts the time we live in as a fast pace, with fast talkers, and fast food; too much fast food. “….and we have fast food. Every city does. And every suburb. And every little bit of this country has very fast food.” We are bombarded with fast food, it is inescapable. Her complaint is that this fast food is only here at our convenience, contributing to our fast paced lives. Due to this accessibility to quick food, family values and nutritional values have been put on hold or displaced completely from our society. In my anthropology class, we are discussing how “progress” is not always beneficial or better. It is an inevitable facet of our nature and although it may create efficiency, quality is sometimes over looked.
    Another complaint she has is the difficulty of attaining healthy food. “Do the wealthy have access to the really healthy food while the less affluent do not?” Why is health subjective to the wealth of a person? How is that democracy? Kalman writes, “When you look at it that way, it does not feel at all like a democracy. The fabric of our lives is bound in the food that we eat and the way we sit down to eat.” Food should not be included in the capitalized and elitist circle of our society today; it is a necessity. Allowing such a corruption only cripples Americans ability to sit down together and enjoy a delectable meal.
    The way Kalman writes is very confrontational. She exhibits pictures instilling the images in our head so that we must face the reality, such as the picture of the cow staring directly at the reader. She then writes a direct question to the reader, “Land of the cows that we eat. Should we? Shouldn’t we?” The blunt question creates an imidiate reation from the reader or imidiate concideration if anything. She also uses pictures of children leading the way to a bright and healthy future, indicating the simplicity of fixing the problem. If children can cook and have a sense of value for sitting down and eating together, why can’t adults? She shows children leading the way, renovating the distorted eating habits of today.
    The way Kalman writes is a series of visits and experiences. She does not embellish with adjectives or personal opinion. She just tells the story as simple as possible. For examples when she as visits Bob Cannard’s farm, the experiences are put directly on the page. She also reflects on George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as well while telling about Bob. Perhaps she is comparing the men and that they have the same objectives. This glorifies Bob Cannard even more so.
    When Kalman writes she details the people she visits and how much pride they take in their cooking. When she visits Alice’s house she describes the story of the cooking to the egg. She points out that she does not use some elite fancy cooking wear, but a large spoon made by her friend, Angelo Garro. This translates to the audience as taking pride in her friends work and in her cooking. When she writes “Hurrah for the chicken, Hurrah for the egg,” I think she is sarcastically saying how excellent it is to have an at home meal and showing how easy it was to do so.
    The audience is not a select few, but a broad span of people. It is directed to all Americans who have lost the sense of nutritional value, to fast food corporations, to adults who no longer make at home meals, or those who already eat organically and endorse healthy habits so that they may expand their ideas onto others.

  6. Rachel Hegland
    Rachael Sullivan
    English 101

    “We are what we eat” is a common phrase that everybody has heard at one point or another. Yet, we as people of today’s society never really take that phrase into consideration. Why should we? I was taught to never bite the hand that feeds me. However, Maria Kalman’s piece Back to the Land provides sufficient evidence and a strong argument as to why Americans need to take a step back and look at what we are consuming.
    Maria Kalman’s pitch is simple; she provides the argument on the very first page. “Thanksgiving. Since the beginning, Americans have connected the bounty of the land and the goodness of life to democracy. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison-farmers all- envisioned an agrarian society. We have since evolved into a very different kind of society.” Maria Kalman displays Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison in her statement because those are historical figures that we as Americans look up to and idolize. She uses history to remind Americans of the initial reason of why this country was founded. She also reminds us that they were all farmers alike. She sets up an ideal scene and then uses the comparison of then and now to prove her argument of how Americans have become deluded with a sense of quantity over quality.
    Maria Kalman wrote this in the year of 2009. She depicts the time we live in as a fast pace, with fast talkers, and fast food; too much fast food. “….and we have fast food. Every city does. And every suburb. And every little bit of this country has very fast food.” We are bombarded with fast food, it is inescapable. Her complaint is that this fast food is only here at our convenience, contributing to our fast paced lives. Due to this accessibility to quick food, family values and nutritional values have been put on hold or displaced completely from our society. In my anthropology class, we are discussing how “progress” is not always beneficial or better. It is an inevitable facet of our nature and although it may create efficiency, quality is sometimes over looked.
    Another complaint she has is the difficulty of attaining healthy food. “Do the wealthy have access to the really healthy food while the less affluent do not?” Why is health subjective to the wealth of a person? How is that democracy? Kalman writes, “When you look at it that way, it does not feel at all like a democracy. The fabric of our lives is bound in the food that we eat and the way we sit down to eat.” Food should not be included in the capitalized and elitist circle of our society today; it is a necessity. Allowing such a corruption only cripples Americans ability to sit down together and enjoy a delectable meal.
    The way Kalman writes is very confrontational. She exhibits pictures instilling the images in our head so that we must face the reality, such as the picture of the cow staring directly at the reader. She then writes a direct question to the reader, “Land of the cows that we eat. Should we? Shouldn’t we?” This envokes a direct response from the reader. She also uses pictures of children leading the way to a bright and healthy future, indicating the simplicity of fixing the problem. If children can cook and have a sense of value for sitting down and eating together, why can’t adults? She shows children leading the way, renovating the distorted eating habits of today. She tells of the plan
    The way Kalman writes is a series of visits and experiences. She does not embellish with adjectives or personal opinion. She just tells the story as simple as possible. For examples when she as visits Bob Cannard’s farm, the experiences are put directly on the page. She also reflects on George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as well while telling about Bob. Perhaps she is comparing the men and that they have the same objectives. This glorifies Bob Cannard even more so.
    When Kalman writes she details the people she visits and how much pride they take in their cooking. When she visits Alice’s house she describes the story of the cooking to the egg. She points out that she does not use some elite fancy cooking wear, but a large spoon made by her friend, Angelo Garro. This translates to the audience as taking pride in her friends work and in her cooking. When she writes “Hurrah for the chicken, Hurrah for the egg,” I think she is sarcastically saying how excellent it is to have an at home meal and showing how easy it was to do so.
    The audience is not a select few, but a broad span of people. It is directed to all Americans who have lost the sense of nutritional value, to fast food corporations, to adults who no longer make at home meals, or those who already eat organically and endorse healthy habits so that they spread their habits and ideas onto others.

  7. I think that the pitch of Kalman’s essay is that people need to be more aware of what they eat. When Kalman shows pictures of unhealthy food she follows it up with a statement that is negative. For an example she shows a picture of a McDonald’s sandwich and the next page it showed diet pills with a quote that says “..you become fat and sick also fatafat and no amount of fatafat pills will help you.” She is trying to say that you can’t just eat un healthy and try and take pills to get skinny you have eat healthy and get off your butt and work out. I think she really is trying to make people start to think about what they are eating so she can help the future generations.
    Kalman is genuinely trying to get a hold of the younger generations and make a difference in their lives since the older generations are already eating so unhealthy. Throughout the essay she shows pictures of children eating healthier choices and they seem very happy. For almost all of the pictures with the children in she didn’t even use words to describe anything you could just tell that they are happy and healthy in the picture. One of the last pictures is of a little girl in school smiling, the page before that is a quote that says “and there will be bounty of a different kind in this country”. This is referring to the fact that the country will be a lot happier if we all ate healthy. Kalman wrote this when she was living in New York. New York is obviously a very fast paced city so people don’t always have time to make a healthy choice. If she would have wrote this article while living in the country side on a farm it would be totally different. She probably would not have seen as much of a problem because the usually eat a lot healthier and more of home grown foods. I think that her main point is for people to slow down their lives and to take care of their bodies and start to eat healthier and more with their families.

  8. I really thought that the hand writing throughout the article really plays apart in what the author was trying to say. When reading the article I really felt in some way that I was reading her personal journal. By using the written text instead of type I think it made the piece more raw to the reader. I really believed more of what she was trying to say then I think I would have if it was typed up. The whole set up made me stop and really analyze the article.
    I think that in Kalman’s story “Back to the Land” she really wants the reader to look back on the old days and learn form them. By beginning with the forefathers using Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison she sets a tone. Today many people are always going, doing one thing after another and not having any time to sit down with there own family and eat a decedent meal. She argues throughout the piece that we need to eat healthy and organic things instead of going to the popular fast food restaurants, which she says that, ‘every city does’.She really tries to reach out to the younger readers in hopes that they might be able to help get her point across about the way we and that we might change our horrible eating habits. I thing that in response to thing piece she would like to see more of the children getting involved and stepping up in there own community to eat healthier food. By using the many pictures of the school children she is putting a face to the people who are going to help her visions and make them a reality. Also by using pictures of cows and chickens, she emphasis how important and easy eating organic food can be.

  9. Renee Recob
    English 101
    Rachel Sullivan
    September 21, 2011

    Maria Kalman has a clear and yet veiled purpose in her persuasive visual essay. The idea, the purpose, is not just to preach the obvious benefits of an organic local lifestyle, as that is well known but hard to put into place. The purpose is not just sustenance revolution, but political revolution. We need to change the way we eat AND govern. The founders intended America to be an agrarian nation; we were founded on those principles; including localism. We now are not just nutritionally outsourced, but also politically and economically outsourced. Kalman gently commands us to change things from the bottom up, starting in the smallest place imaginable: a common garden.
    Maria Kalman’s audience can be anyone, but is but intended for American citizens, the low income, those without hope; but also for those at the top, a wake up for them to realize we don’t have to be like this. Kalman was motivated to write this visual essay because the government is not what is used to be, it has completely and distinctively changed. We live in a time in which we are the farthest away from our formative values. We are a fast-paced society that is setting us back from what our founding fathers believed in and what our nation was built on. Kalman relates to her readers in a friendly unifying sense, but her underlying tone is radical and scathing of what the government has become. The photography does nothing but add to the effectiveness of her words: to see the children active in their lives, in a community, working together shows others what type of society we should be striving towards. So many people are unfamiliar with the (logical) radicalism she is portraying with her words, so her use of photography is a guided pathway she presents to help her readers better understand that change can happen from anywhere – The Revolution starts in the garden.

  10. Pitch: From reading the piece and re-reading it, it seemed to suggest that the root of the problem is with the children and that as students they need to be better educated on the subject. Complaint: The problem is that the way we eat, is what makes us so unhealthy and as we eat the unhealthy foods, fast food companies are making tons of money off the public. Movement: Back in the era of WWI it seems that Kalman tried pointing out the positive trends that we had going like the production of our own food in our backyards. But once fast food was created, it gave people the quick option which then wiped out the need for home grown food.

    I think this was piece where she used pictures to tell her story. She wanted the reading audience to realize themselves through pictures the importance because through text, the message may not be received as well. Pictures and videos for kids are better for trying to send a message cause multimedia is the new in this era and its more interesting to the eye for kids to receive and understand. But even for adults multimedia can also influence them to change there decisions on what they do as far as healthy eating. So for Kalman to use multimedia such as this it is more beneficial and effective then text from a book.

  11. Kalman’s essay, “Back to the Land”, raises awareness for the types of food that fast-paced Americans consume. Her pitch in the essay was to encourage families to come together and start a garden. Having family meals and a healthy diet of natural foods was the way society ate before fast food chains and restaurants. Our society has changed and we eventually adapted to this fast-paced environment – which doesn’t encourage families to grow their own food. Blurred pictures of city people walking down busy streets enhance Kalman’s point that society is fast-paced. The author encourages that we go back to the basics- the way our founding fathers always believed that it should be.
    Kalman also addresses the negative effects a poor diet has on our bodies and our society. Eating fast food is unhealthy; it can lead to obesity and it is growing very common with children. Parents that sit down with their children in front of a home-cooked meal know what ingredients are in the food they’re eating. On the other hand, parents who tell their children to find something in the house and cook it, the kids have the option to choose unhealthy choices. This would lead to developed poor eating habits that could be avoided. Kalman visualizes a “fat future” for America and switching to natural garden-grown foods would help everyone.
    In my opinion, Kalman was influenced to write this essay (November 2009) partly because of the food documentary, Food Inc. which was released late in 2008. Food Inc. descriptively showed how processed our food is today. The butcher process is brutally shown and the chemicals in our food were exposed. In this time period, restaurants such as McDonald’s were “addressing” this issue by adding apple dippers and salads to its menu. The pre-sliced apples are spray with preservatives to keep them “fresh” in the plastic bag they were packaged in. That doesn’t sound healthy or natural at all.
    Kalman uses a combination of her own handwriting and pictures to add her own personality in her essay. Her point is simple. Mainly, she wants people to be aware- she wants the public to think about where their food is coming from and what it took to make it. She also wants to encourage people to start growing their own food and think about the food habits that have. I noticed she never said “become vegetarian or vegan”. I found this interesting but I believe that she left this out because that way this essay could attract a larger audience. Overall, the point of this essay was to show that home-grown foods ensure us that we know where it’s from and we know it’s healthy for us and our Earth.

  12. The Purpose: Kalman’s argument in “Back to the Land” was that Americans do not have healthy eating habits. She feels like people should take what they eat more seriously and for them to know what effects their bodies in negeative and positive ways. Kalman’s feels that eatings habits should be looked at in a political view as well for example: raising the prices of fast food and lowering the prices of organic food. “Back to the Land” says it all, Kalman feels that we should go back to natural farm picked products.

    The Complaint: Its like America has became so used to eating fast food. We are stuck in the modern era. Back then the food was a lot more natural and healthy. Now with new technology America has became more lazy and food has become more processed. There is not really such thing as “healthy” food anymore. It is strating not to exist amongst Americans today. Another complaint from Kalman is that the government isn’t doing anything about it they are just letting the world move along as the future comes to it.

    The Moment: She wrote this essay in 2006 so its quite obvious that the moment is pretty modern. Anything in the 2000’s is modern. Kalman’s audience can be the government, the parents, food processors, farmers, and markets. America as a whole.Kalman wants them to respond making their choices of food processing to a more healthier strategy.

  13. I feel as if Kalman created a pitch for this peace out of clear frustration. The world around us is ever changing; as technology advances, humans grow lazier. I define technology as something more than just my Iphone; it is the creation of harsher pesticides for plants, it is genetical engineering creating perfect corn cobs and monster strawberries. Kalman is not creating her argument for “Back to the Land” under the radar, the piece was in the New York Times, I can access that newspaper on my Barnes and Noble, Nook within 10 seconds with a wifi connection. I wonder how many people around the world saw this piece and grew frustrated with her for opposing reasons, or the same reasons. Her pitch is clear, although not explicitly mentioned, the title does most of the work; “Back to the Land”. She starts and ends the piece with talk of the founding fathers, leading me to believe her piece is urging readers to go back to a simpler time, when technology wasn’t as important, and good food, good family time and good conversation were common in every household on the block.
    “Flying in the catastrophic carbon-imprint vehicle, eating the catastrophic airplane food,” (Kalman 88). In a different context than the phrase is typically used, I’m going to call this direct quote a sign of the times; what is becoming of the world. This clearly says to me that Kalman is frustrated with the way the world she lives in is developing. Using her own handwriting to file her complaint with the world and sucking readers in like her handwriting is of their very own best friend. Two years ago when this piece was published Kalman was confronting the readers of the New York Times, asking them to think about more than their health choices, but about how they are directly effecting the up-and-coming generation of Americans. If she had to rewrite the piece for todays world, I wonder how the moments of 2011 would have influenced her tone. “Early one morning I go for a walk. I see a woman who I know is a bit out of her mind. I like her. She is walking in a kind of trace, going from tree to tree, stopping at each one to look up at the leaves. Is she acting this way because she dran soda for breakfast her whole life?” (Kalman 119). What would she think of the people of todays world? Did 60% of my high schools graduating class drink soda for breakfast their entire lives? I almost want to call her up and philosophize with her.

Leave a Reply