"Fresh fruits, vegetables and meats organically cultivated by local growers, like the ducks brought from Sonoma County Poultry, pepper a menu as focused as Waters’ passion."
--John W. Cox, Personality/Profile article
This sentence is a good example of the difference in styles between this profile piece and the one by Stockton. Stockton hardly ever seemed to let her own writer's voice guide the story, choosing instead to rely on the quotes of the people she interviewed. Cox uses a lot more of his own rhetorical flourishes, and he uses description a lot more, mentioning that Waters "grimace[s]" when asked a question about redwood trees. Of course, his article does seem to be a bit longer, so he has more room to put in his own writerly invention in addition to the requisite quoted sources. Overall, the way this article was written gave me the impression that the writer is more confident in his voice than Stockton was. I know that as a novice newswriter, I'm more attracted to letting the quotes do most of the talking in my story than try to describe things myself; I don't feel particularly confident enough to know how much of my own voice I can inject into a story while still being tasteful and correct. I think there are pros and cons to each approach; Stockton's story gave me a clear sense of the people in the subject's life because she showcased the way they spoke. Stockton was able to show how much impact the subject has had by directly quoting people who she's helped. The downside was, I couldn't really picture the subject or any of the people interviewed because so little time was spent describing them physically. In Cox's article, I got a much clearer sense of the physical environment of his subject. Then, when he relied more on quotes throughout the second half of the article, I could picture the anecdotes people told a little more vividly because I had more of a sense of the place in which they happened. Would Stockton have spent more time describing what the Delancey Street complex looked like if her article was as long as Cox's? Perhaps. As it is, Cox's article seems to be a bit stronger to me, because it relies on physical description and what people say to tell the story. As a playwright, I'm always drawn more to the dialogue than the physical description, of course. I can see how this kind of description can be helpful, though.