Smith, a self-proclaimed “lifelong devotee of life” (264), has an intriguing relationship with the smallest representative life he finds in pond water. He discloses: “I have trouble explaining my satisfaction with the animalcules” (260). Can you explain his keen pleasure in observing the animalcules? Post two paragraphs that react to data from the article
Honestly I didn't really enjoy this article very much. It really is something that I wish I cared about, but don't. Smith obviously loves these little animacules and the whole new world he finds under his microscope, but reading about it isn't all that interesting. Yet, this shows me just how much Smith really does love his pond scum. If he can write about it this much, paying attention to every little detail and attempting to paint a picture of it in my mind, and STILL believe that what he's writing is interesting... well then he must have found his calling in life. The theories of microlife are neat for a little while I guess, but I would definitely be more like his niece that said "eww" and asked to look at something else.
Overall, the big picture of Smith's article does interest me to some extent. I enjoy the fantastical ideas he has when he wonders about amoebas and things like that, but when he gets into specifics my attention is lost completely. But all in all, I easily picked up that he is definitely a lover of life. He reminded me of a woman I was watching on BBC that was rescuing elephants. She was talking about them to the camera and you could just tell that she REALLY just LOVES elephants. Everything about them. Her voice, diction, and tone just showed her genuine love and interest in these creatures. So when I read this article, I thought of Smith's words coming out just like the elephant woman's. I think when someone finds something they love so much, they should follow what their heart tells them to do. Smith doesn't have to explain why he loves observing the animalcules, he just needs to know that is what he truly loves to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wasn't a big fan of this article either. Do you think it has something to do with Smith's writing technique? He spent so much time describing animalcules that I found myself saying, "Yeah, yeah, I get it. You like animalcules." Could he have presented his article in a better way?
ReplyDeleteYeah...I was really bored with the article at parts, too...
ReplyDeleteUnlike Hannah, though, I thought Smith's style made it a little more interesting than it would have been if it was ONLY scientific fact. You can totally tell that he really does love what he's looking at, and that made it at least a little more bearable to read, at least for me. If I was reading an article by someone who was writing about these animalcules just because they had to, I think it would've been an even WORSE read. The only thing I think he could've done differently is maybe make it a little shorter, haha.