Reading Response

I greatly enjoyed reading the columns by Nicholas Kristof, and I have actually read several of his recent columns that were linked by bloggers and organizations that I follow. Kristof takes the time to carefully research each of his columns, getting to the deeper truth behind the news story and the hype. I find it very impressive that he has the time to do such thorough work each week, and I assume that he has other projects besides his column and blog.

One issue that came up for me was Kristof's lack of objectivity in the pieces for his column. I realize that the column is categorized as an op-ed, but I felt somewhat distracted by the weighty moral indictments that Nicholas Kristof makes at the end of each column. Kristof is not an expert in most of the topics that he covers, and though his opinions are valid and convincing, I worry about the preponderance of opinions in mainstream media. One of the reasons that I like to read journalistic pieces is the lack of editorializing that goes on in most news pieces. In the world of facebook, twitter, etc, we are constantly bombarded by the opinions of non-experts, and I felt that at certain instances Kristof's opinion about a topic overshadowed the characters in his pieces and the topic itself.

In each of the articles chosen for this week, the authors chose to write themselves as characters in their profiles. This certainly helps give the pieces a narrative flow, and it allows writers to include details that would not make sense if they left themselves out of the story, like how A.A. Gill came across L'Ami Louis and how Vidal Sassoon presents himself at the restaurant. I enjoyed reading pieces in which the writers addressed their impact on the profile's content and tone, because I know that my own voice and character will be very present in my profile piece. The writers of this week's pieces used themselves to provide context and voice, but they kept the focus of the pieces on the profile subjects. I imagine that this may be a challenge for me, since my topic is so close to my own life and it would be easy for my character to overwhelm my profile and take control of my essay.

Both of the articles for this week are about topics that I find quite fascinating. Vidal Sassoon is a very interesting person to profile, especially since he has made such an impact on an industry that very few of us regularly think about. I had no idea that hair styling used to be such a bourgeoisie practice, available only to rich women and with secret practices designed to keep stylists in business. In his own way, Vidal Sassoon liberated working class women by making hair cuts available to people from every walk of life. I also found his discussion of the devaluing of hair styling to be something I related to, as I have often thought rather poorly of people who chose to style hair for their profession. Sassoon's comments made me rethink my biases against hair stylists and begin to see them as artists working in the medium of hair. “Tour De Gall” also held my attention, despite being on a topic I know very little about. French cuisine is not of particular interest to me, but as the piece went on to describe the terrible restaurant, I felt myself wondering more and more about the Americans and English who love L'Ami Louise. My only regret is that the author did not delve more deeply into the cultural implications of the American fascination with this terrible French restaurant, though I did feel myself being pulled into the strange atmosphere of the place and tempted to check it our for myself. Until the $403 bill arrived. Then I was glad Vanity Fair paid for the review, so that I would never have to experience L'Ami Louise for myself.