The two articles you read for today are from The New Yorker's Talk of the Town section. How do they differ from a profile? How are they similar to a profile? Which article dos you prefer and why?
I do believe that both of these pieces are not profiles but instead have profile-like aspects. In "Meet Up", the main focus really is weed instead of a person. While the piece does provide a substantial amount of information on David Bronner, it really is more focused on weed. The author provides a lot of information on David, his background, and his career but he just seems more like a pawn in the cause of weed legalization. I would say it's similar to a profile in terms of how much information we are given as readers but unless a profile can be on an inanimate object, then this specific piece is not a profile. I also believe to be the same about "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library". While we never learn the name of our narrator, we do obtain a lot of information on them. We know where they, they're married, and clearly enjoy to read. But the true focus of this piece is not a person, but instead the entire library system in New York. So it is similar to a profile in that we receive a lot of information on our narrator but not enough to have it qualify as a profile on her.
I agree with you that they are both not profiles. I had similar thought as I was reading these articles. That they were more focused on the object than the actual people. We may have learned a little bit about each narrator but not enough to call them profiles.
Meet- Up is not profile, a profile you learned about a person from beginning to end. By the end of a profile you should feel like you know the person. When I read Meet-Up I feel like I didn’t know anyone. David Bronner told a little bit about himself but know enough to the extent where I really got to know him. This writing was basically about weed and having it become legal. If this was a profile the only thing that could possibly make it one is the little information we have on David Bronner, but that still not enough to call it a profile. In “The Unruly pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” I believe this is also not a profile. This article talks about libraries in New York and what types of books you can find in these great libraries. I really don’t know much about the narrators life at all where they came from, their child hood, what their job is etc. If I knew more about the Narrator I would definitely say this was a profile. In both of these articles they talk about objects we learn more about each or the object rather than the narrator. The article I prefer is “The Unruly pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” because it was more interesting and kept my attention all the way through. Were the other one I didn’t like and thought it was boring. I just wanted it to end.
I agree with your point on the "Meet Up" article and how we didn't know enough about Bronner to say that the article was written purely to tell the audience about him. I felt that it was too brief in both telling us who Bronner is and introducing his case for legalizing marijuana. That article didn't hold my attention for long.
I agree that neither pieces are profiles. You do not learn much about the subjects in either work. However, I feel like they're about places, in that in both articles the authors described their surroundings in enough detail that you as a reader felt familiar with the atmosphere detailed.
I don’t think that these articles could be considered profiles although they do incorporate some facets of profile writing. One of those facets being the quest to capture the essence of someone in words. Or in the case of the article about the Mid-Manhattan library, a place. The difference between these pieces and profiles is that a profile focuses on the subject’s world, be that their workplace, their home, their day-to-day life. It’s the written version of that person’s life story. These pieces, especially the article about the library, connect the subject to the rest of the world. Written in first person, “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library”, gives the piece a personal edge. I found this article to be my favorite, slightly because of the bias I have towards libraries, but also I liked how Ada Calhoun wrote about the types of people in each library. I personally felt that the article “Meet Up” gave a brief description of Bronner and his journey to legalize marijuana and that was simply it. It was just a brief look into a small portion of the subject of marijuana legalization.
I agree that these pieces are similar to that of a profile, but I also agree that a profile is supposed to capture the essence of someones words, and these articles do not do that.
I do believe that Meet Up is a profile about David Bronner. The article goes on to discuss how Bronner thinks about the Presidential candidates feel about weed legalization. Bronner goes on to explain how he feels that Bernie Sanders is the most accepting about pot legalization. The article also talks about how Bronner won The Seattle Hempfest's Cannabis Activist of the Year award. Even though this article still tells the reader about who Brenner is and how he feels about the question of pot legalization. I feel "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library." The article goes on to explore the history of the library. The article also compares the library from what it used to be like to what it is today. Sean Burwell
I do agree that "The Unruly Please of the Mid-Manhattan Library" is a better piece. I disagree that the "Meet-Up" article is a profile story about David Bronner. I think that the article didn't give enough information about David Bronner to be a profile piece. I believe that the article is the movement to legalize weed. - Andrew Higginbottom
"The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" and "Meet-Up" are not profile stories, rather one is a story about a location and the latter is about a movement. However, both of the articles have elements that are similar of a profile story. They both have quotes from individuals, just like a profile story has. Nonetheless, they are not about a specific person. The focus in "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" is an in depth outlook on the various branches of the Mid-Manhattan Library. While, "Meet-Up" is about the movement and the activists that want to legalize weed. The article that I liked more was "The Unruly Pleasure of the Mid-Manhattan Library" because I believe it was more well-written and it made you feel like you were exploring the library. -Andrew Higginbottom
I agree with the fact that these are not profiles and it is tricky to tell the difference because the articles are similar to a profile because the use of quotes. I liked how you felt as though you were exploring the library as well.
These articles differ from a profile in that they are not about a person, but rather about a place. While profile is meant to capture aspects about an individual such as their profession, their personality, or their life in general, these articles capture places. “The Meet-Up” begins by profiling David Bronner, a 42 year old marijuana legalization activist, however, by the end of the article the reader finds themself in the midst of a “hemp-infused banquet.” As for “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library,” here the author is strictly detailing a variety of New York Public Libraries. I enjoy this article more so than the other due to the author’s strength in capturing the many atmospheres of the libraries through words. As a reader you felt as if you truly could discern the differences between each library according to the writer’s brief distinctions.
I definitely agree with you where you say that these differ from profiles because they are not about people but places or ideas. While we do get a decent amount of information about the people who are visiting these libraries or supporting the legalization of weed, it is not enough information to call them profiles. I also agree with your last sentence, it almost felt as if each library had it's own personality.
These two articles from The New Yorker are not profiles. Before learning about what makes a profile, I may have believed that these were, but after working with different types of profiles, these two articles stand out of that category. The first article, "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" can be mistaken for an article because Calhoun talks about details of the library, but most of it is personal opinion whereas a profile would be more on facts about the library. The "Meet-Up" article is not a profile either. When reading about David Bronner and his movement of legalizing marijuana, you do not get a full detail on Bronner, but more about the marijuana he feels needs to be legal. It does not have to do with any part of Bronner's life, but more opinion on weed. I preferred reading the "Meet-Up" article because I found Calhoun's article on the library to be boring. It was interesting to see what this author did to talk about someone that believes weed should be legal because it is such a controversial topic in US.
The article “Meet-Up” could definitely be seen as a profile of Bronner. However, it is more about the bigger idea of the issue on marijuana, which is why it is not necessarily a profile piece. Other people’s views are brought into the article, not just Bronner’s. The same thing goes for “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library”. Although Calhoun is accounting her experiences and opinions, the bigger picture is that she is describing places and not her life. The focus is much more on the library than anything else. I personally enjoyed “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” more because the author was much more detailed and descriptive. She gave me a reason to care about her piece. However, “Meet-Up” was way too short and lacked detail, so readers who do not care about the marijuana issues discussed are not going to have a reason to be interested in the article.
I disagree that "Meet-up" is a profile on Bronner. Although covering the every day things he likes to do, when and where and how, I do not feel that it totally covered his life, which is how I see a profile to be.
I do not believe that either "Meet-Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" can be considered profiles. I believe they are each similar to a profile, seeing as though they each describe the world of something, but marijuana and libraries are objects, not people, and i find it hard to profile an object, without personifying it. In "Meet-Up" David Bronner tells us a little about himself, but not enough to consider it a profile. My favorite read was the one about the libraries. I favored this reading over the marijuana reading because it not only caught my attention, but held on to it throughout the reading.
I agree with what you wrote. I had a very similar opinion of the articles and do not believe that these are profiles because they are not focused on people. Rather, these articles focus on an object or certain scenery.
I do not believe that "Meet-Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library" are considered profiles. Although they resemble a profile, I don't think that they are explaining the true meaning of these inanimate objects. I did not receive any information from the narrators, or a specific person, in order for the articles to be considered profiles. Rather, the articles focused on an object, or specific location. Therefore, I think a profile needs to be focused on a specific person. I favored the marijuana article because it was attention grabbing and easy to read.
I believe that "Meet-Up" and "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library" are not profiles at all. Although they both have their own focal points, they do not at all focus on just one person. I feel that a profile is done on a person, with back ground and information and although, "Meet-Up" has a person in it, it does not exactly cover who that person is like a true profile would. I favored the article about the library because it was funny, yet interesting to see the differences in each section. I have never been to that library but reading it, although maybe not and exciting subject, did sort of make me want to go someday and visit the different areas and get a glimpse of what is it really like, and I feel that going to each different one would be fun to people watch.
I do not view either "Meet Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library as profiles, as I feel they really struggle to identify a point and run with it. I do believe a profile can be done an inanimate object, however for something to be a profile I need to have facts given to me that can give a thorough understanding of the topic, not biased opinions or personal feelings. The facts need to be a general consensus everyone is exposed too. I preferred the Library article simply because it at least had facts about the library and gave universal opinions people tend to have from it.
I do believe that both of these pieces are not profiles but instead have profile-like aspects. In "Meet Up", the main focus really is weed instead of a person. While the piece does provide a substantial amount of information on David Bronner, it really is more focused on weed. The author provides a lot of information on David, his background, and his career but he just seems more like a pawn in the cause of weed legalization. I would say it's similar to a profile in terms of how much information we are given as readers but unless a profile can be on an inanimate object, then this specific piece is not a profile. I also believe to be the same about "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library". While we never learn the name of our narrator, we do obtain a lot of information on them. We know where they, they're married, and clearly enjoy to read. But the true focus of this piece is not a person, but instead the entire library system in New York. So it is similar to a profile in that we receive a lot of information on our narrator but not enough to have it qualify as a profile on her.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that they are both not profiles. I had similar thought as I was reading these articles. That they were more focused on the object than the actual people. We may have learned a little bit about each narrator but not enough to call them profiles.
DeleteMeet- Up is not profile, a profile you learned about a person from beginning to end. By the end of a profile you should feel like you know the person. When I read Meet-Up I feel like I didn’t know anyone. David Bronner told a little bit about himself but know enough to the extent where I really got to know him. This writing was basically about weed and having it become legal. If this was a profile the only thing that could possibly make it one is the little information we have on David Bronner, but that still not enough to call it a profile. In “The Unruly pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” I believe this is also not a profile. This article talks about libraries in New York and what types of books you can find in these great libraries. I really don’t know much about the narrators life at all where they came from, their child hood, what their job is etc. If I knew more about the Narrator I would definitely say this was a profile. In both of these articles they talk about objects we learn more about each or the object rather than the narrator. The article I prefer is “The Unruly pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” because it was more interesting and kept my attention all the way through. Were the other one I didn’t like and thought it was boring. I just wanted it to end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on the "Meet Up" article and how we didn't know enough about Bronner to say that the article was written purely to tell the audience about him. I felt that it was too brief in both telling us who Bronner is and introducing his case for legalizing marijuana. That article didn't hold my attention for long.
DeleteI agree that neither pieces are profiles. You do not learn much about the subjects in either work. However, I feel like they're about places, in that in both articles the authors described their surroundings in enough detail that you as a reader felt familiar with the atmosphere detailed.
DeleteI don’t think that these articles could be considered profiles although they do incorporate some facets of profile writing. One of those facets being the quest to capture the essence of someone in words. Or in the case of the article about the Mid-Manhattan library, a place. The difference between these pieces and profiles is that a profile focuses on the subject’s world, be that their workplace, their home, their day-to-day life. It’s the written version of that person’s life story. These pieces, especially the article about the library, connect the subject to the rest of the world. Written in first person, “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library”, gives the piece a personal edge. I found this article to be my favorite, slightly because of the bias I have towards libraries, but also I liked how Ada Calhoun wrote about the types of people in each library. I personally felt that the article “Meet Up” gave a brief description of Bronner and his journey to legalize marijuana and that was simply it. It was just a brief look into a small portion of the subject of marijuana legalization.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the library article was much more interesting and detailed, while the marijuana article was pretty concise and boring.
DeleteI agree that these pieces are similar to that of a profile, but I also agree that a profile is supposed to capture the essence of someones words, and these articles do not do that.
DeleteZoe Wyman
I do believe that Meet Up is a profile about David Bronner. The article goes on to discuss how Bronner thinks about the Presidential candidates feel about weed legalization. Bronner goes on to explain how he feels that Bernie Sanders is the most accepting about pot legalization. The article also talks about how Bronner won The Seattle Hempfest's Cannabis Activist of the Year award. Even though this article still tells the reader about who Brenner is and how he feels about the question of pot legalization. I feel "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library." The article goes on to explore the history of the library. The article also compares the library from what it used to be like to what it is today.
ReplyDeleteSean Burwell
I do agree that "The Unruly Please of the Mid-Manhattan Library" is a better piece. I disagree that the "Meet-Up" article is a profile story about David Bronner. I think that the article didn't give enough information about David Bronner to be a profile piece. I believe that the article is the movement to legalize weed.
Delete- Andrew Higginbottom
"The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" and "Meet-Up" are not profile stories, rather one is a story about a location and the latter is about a movement. However, both of the articles have elements that are similar of a profile story. They both have quotes from individuals, just like a profile story has. Nonetheless, they are not about a specific person. The focus in "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" is an in depth outlook on the various branches of the Mid-Manhattan Library. While, "Meet-Up" is about the movement and the activists that want to legalize weed. The article that I liked more was "The Unruly Pleasure of the Mid-Manhattan Library" because I believe it was more well-written and it made you feel like you were exploring the library.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Higginbottom
I agree with the fact that these are not profiles and it is tricky to tell the difference because the articles are similar to a profile because the use of quotes. I liked how you felt as though you were exploring the library as well.
DeleteThese articles differ from a profile in that they are not about a person, but rather about a place. While profile is meant to capture aspects about an individual such as their profession, their personality, or their life in general, these articles capture places. “The Meet-Up” begins by profiling David Bronner, a 42 year old marijuana legalization activist, however, by the end of the article the reader finds themself in the midst of a “hemp-infused banquet.” As for “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library,” here the author is strictly detailing a variety of New York Public Libraries. I enjoy this article more so than the other due to the author’s strength in capturing the many atmospheres of the libraries through words. As a reader you felt as if you truly could discern the differences between each library according to the writer’s brief distinctions.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you where you say that these differ from profiles because they are not about people but places or ideas. While we do get a decent amount of information about the people who are visiting these libraries or supporting the legalization of weed, it is not enough information to call them profiles. I also agree with your last sentence, it almost felt as if each library had it's own personality.
DeleteThese two articles from The New Yorker are not profiles. Before learning about what makes a profile, I may have believed that these were, but after working with different types of profiles, these two articles stand out of that category. The first article, "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" can be mistaken for an article because Calhoun talks about details of the library, but most of it is personal opinion whereas a profile would be more on facts about the library. The "Meet-Up" article is not a profile either. When reading about David Bronner and his movement of legalizing marijuana, you do not get a full detail on Bronner, but more about the marijuana he feels needs to be legal. It does not have to do with any part of Bronner's life, but more opinion on weed. I preferred reading the "Meet-Up" article because I found Calhoun's article on the library to be boring. It was interesting to see what this author did to talk about someone that believes weed should be legal because it is such a controversial topic in US.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Meet-Up” could definitely be seen as a profile of Bronner. However, it is more about the bigger idea of the issue on marijuana, which is why it is not necessarily a profile piece. Other people’s views are brought into the article, not just Bronner’s. The same thing goes for “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library”. Although Calhoun is accounting her experiences and opinions, the bigger picture is that she is describing places and not her life. The focus is much more on the library than anything else. I personally enjoyed “The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library” more because the author was much more detailed and descriptive. She gave me a reason to care about her piece. However, “Meet-Up” was way too short and lacked detail, so readers who do not care about the marijuana issues discussed are not going to have a reason to be interested in the article.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that "Meet-up" is a profile on Bronner. Although covering the every day things he likes to do, when and where and how, I do not feel that it totally covered his life, which is how I see a profile to be.
DeleteZoe Wyman
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that either "Meet-Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of the Mid-Manhattan Library" can be considered profiles. I believe they are each similar to a profile, seeing as though they each describe the world of something, but marijuana and libraries are objects, not people, and i find it hard to profile an object, without personifying it. In "Meet-Up" David Bronner tells us a little about himself, but not enough to consider it a profile. My favorite read was the one about the libraries. I favored this reading over the marijuana reading because it not only caught my attention, but held on to it throughout the reading.
Hi Zoe,
DeleteI agree with what you wrote. I had a very similar opinion of the articles and do not believe that these are profiles because they are not focused on people. Rather, these articles focus on an object or certain scenery.
I do not believe that "Meet-Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library" are considered profiles. Although they resemble a profile, I don't think that they are explaining the true meaning of these inanimate objects. I did not receive any information from the narrators, or a specific person, in order for the articles to be considered profiles. Rather, the articles focused on an object, or specific location. Therefore, I think a profile needs to be focused on a specific person. I favored the marijuana article because it was attention grabbing and easy to read.
ReplyDeleteI believe that "Meet-Up" and "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library" are not profiles at all. Although they both have their own focal points, they do not at all focus on just one person. I feel that a profile is done on a person, with back ground and information and although, "Meet-Up" has a person in it, it does not exactly cover who that person is like a true profile would. I favored the article about the library because it was funny, yet interesting to see the differences in each section. I have never been to that library but reading it, although maybe not and exciting subject, did sort of make me want to go someday and visit the different areas and get a glimpse of what is it really like, and I feel that going to each different one would be fun to people watch.
ReplyDeleteI do not view either "Meet Up" or "The Unruly Pleasures of Mid-Manhattan Library as profiles, as I feel they really struggle to identify a point and run with it. I do believe a profile can be done an inanimate object, however for something to be a profile I need to have facts given to me that can give a thorough understanding of the topic, not biased opinions or personal feelings. The facts need to be a general consensus everyone is exposed too. I preferred the Library article simply because it at least had facts about the library and gave universal opinions people tend to have from it.
ReplyDeleteDavid Creed