January 31, 2005

Article

Ok, I'm going with Moira and Chris here. The London article assigned was less than exciting to read. 27 pages of psychological text about The Call of the Wild? I didn't even understand some of what the author was writing about. As Chris noted, the reader needs to really know psychology to get anything from the article. Now, I think I have a rather decent vocabulary yet I still found myself reading and thinking, "What?" Since the article also did not exactly hold my attention, I also had to stop and start several times, just adding to my frustration.

This article differs from the O'Conner one in several ways. The O'Conner one is written in a, dare I say it, simpler way. I didn't need to borrow my friend's psychology text to understand the O'Conner article. The London article was also unnecessarily long. I think it could have been condensed and made the same point (whatever that point was). I'm sure it is a wonderful psychological article that someone would just get a kick out of reading but as a literary piece? Didn't work.

Posted by VanessaKolberg at January 31, 2005 08:34 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?