Appleseed, huh. This is the guy
who introduced cider to the world – a cosmopolite, barefooted drunk – lovely.
As you may have been able to tell, I did not enjoy this chapter. Michael Pollan
is quickly working his way up my list of people I despise. Not because of what
he writes, but how he writes. First off I would have much preferred a timeline
of the apple rather than the life of Johnny Appleseed. I would even go as far
as to compare Pollan to Michael Moore. Yes they raise good points but I
struggle (a possible understatement) with how they present their “data.” Maybe
it is the choice of words they use: “…nortions of health and wholesomeness
turns out to be a modern invention,
part of a public relations campaign dreamed
up by the apple industry…” Modern invention and dreamed up are very strong
accusations versus the apple industry without little more than Johnny Appleseed’s
life story. Even if he has done more research, he has not presented enough to
us to justify his harsh view points. It was seen again on page 22.
Maybe this seems petty of me to
see this, but it is these small things that I see throughout the writings of
Pollan that infect and invalidate the evidence he puts forward. Of course I do
not completely dismiss his writings because yes, there is good research and
points in there. But it most certainly makes me question his very empirical
style of book. Definitely the redeeming feature of this chapter was Pollan’s
reference to Henry David Thoreau, a fantastic author and inspiring person.
Of course I found the section on
alcohol interesting. Not that I’m a big drinker, I just found it interesting
how it shaped certain communities and cultures. Because it was so accessible
and more likely to be sanitary to drink than water it was consumed more – even for
children.
Page 28…why are we reading about
Johnny Appleseeds feet and later on into his general life? This continues too!
This chapter name is a bit misleading. “The Apple” describes the first 5 pages,
then it becomes ramblings by a man whose writing I dislike – especially after
his suggested slander of Thoreau having a “polymorphous love with nature.” Good
try Pollan.
Finally on page 45 Pollan gets
back to the actual apple by using the author he has previously disgraced. He
uses Thoreau to discuss the great apple rush and its spread throughout America. He
describes a bit of the diversity and varieties of apples, but overall I found
this reading rather mundane. Sorry Lyn! Pollan is not my favourite author.
Well hello!
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think Pollan is a good writer in terms of how the words flow, I am GLAD to find someone else pointing out how rambling and odd this chapter was with regards to "the history of the apple".
Because really, it wasn't.
I suppose overall the story of the apple was told, but in a very peculiar and rambling way. And given that the "Desire" covered in this chapter was "sweetness"..... why not talk about sugar? Or honey? Or molasses or corn syrup or agave..... I guess I'm wondering WHY apples, and WHY Johnny Appleseed (Disney version or otherwise).
What an American idea; it appears that the "Land of the Big Red Apple" is not mutually exclusive with the "Land of the Cider Drinkers". So perhaps this chapter should be retitled Desire: Intoxication?
Anyhow I just wanted to say *W00T* - you're critique of Pollan was powerful and well supported by your opinions and quotes from the chapter and your powerful, well-chosen words. That is to say while you disliked this chapter you evidently read it thoroughly and are able to argue your perspective with eloquence and evidence.
P.S- I decided I dislike computers, this is the second time I have tried to upload my first comment, and then during the process it gets erased.
ReplyDeleteYour title was very eye catching and fit exactly what you thought about this read. I thought you had good points that were followed up with examples from the text. I didn't dislike the reading this week, and my opinion is not as extreme as yours.
For Johnny Appleseed (John Chapmam) and his dominance in the chapter, don't you think it is because the exact history of the apple is unknown and a bit hazy? I mean even the history of John Chapman is rearranged and altered throughout due to the opinions of others and passing down of information. And I think maybe the apple was chosen because of its diversity of 'celebrities'. I also think that the first attraction to the apple seems to be the sweetness of it, and became something else entirely.
As for the comment:
All the chapters in Micheal Pollan's writing are of plants that directly interact with people. He doesn't talk about wheat - wheat has to be processed and grinded to become something we ingest. Therefore, sugar cane is taken to mills to give the end product of sugar. Honey isn't made directly from plants either. I think a plant that directly supplies sweetness from the plant itself - from the fruit, is why the apple was chosen. And due to the large range of places the apple was able to grow makes it a good representative of sweetness.
I sort of feel the same way you do, just not as strongly. To be honest, I pretty much skimmed through the whole story of Johnny Appleseed. I didn't really care about that, I wanted to learn about the apple. I agree that Pollan sometimes assumes things or lets stuff out without really thinking about it first. But I do enjoy his writing, its content and his style. I bet you're looking forward to a break from reading Pollan so much.
ReplyDeleteAleksander,
ReplyDeleteI love your honesty.
I laughed out loud at your question as to the relevance of Johnny Appleseed's feet, and while I really enjoy Pollan myself I do agree that sometime's people who know they can sweet talk their way through an issue, use that to their advantage; not to say that it isn't enjoyable but it should certainly be questioned when too much tangent gets in the way of a valid point. Ha, I really shouldn't be talking. What I am getting at is that I appreciate your opinion, and that you stuck by it unswayed by Pollan's sweet tongue and Appleseed's legends. There is something to be said for the ability to construct a good argument. Bravo.