In "Flight of the Kuaka" Don Stap uses colorful yet descriptive language to describe the nature of certain types of birds. I am not much of a bird follower, but I didn't mind reading Stap's article because he was able to draw the reader in. His writing flowed and was not difficult to follow. Besides the names of the birds he doesn't use terms that the reader might not understand. Even when using the names of the birds, Stap understands that they are not easy to remember and uses the full name every time. When describing the birds he did not leave anything out, from their color to their weight to what they eat.
When Stap was describing the birds flight paths he did not leave out any details from how high they were flying to the terrain they were flying over. Stap seemed to be just as enthused about the birds and the subject in general as Warnok and Gill are. I enjoyed the paragraph about when Gill was following the flight path of the Bar-tailed Godwit because I felt like I was flying along side the bird. I enjoy reading an article where the author is passionate about the subject. His descriptive language made it evident that he wants the reader to be able to understand. Because of his language and his straightforward approach to the subject made the article somewhat enjoyable to read.
The reader feels as if the writer is writing this holding a long-handled shovel. The writer is unsure about the specimen (prepared by Stap), and as a result, approaches it with caution (perhaps fear and loathing, too). The writer does not want to interact with Stap's sample -- it might be toxic afterall. This makes for rather dull reading. For if the writer is disinterested, the reader will be, too.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading the article. I am not much of a bird fan either but the writing brought me in. I like how you related to how passionate the writer seemed. It is very easy to get into any kind of writing where the writer is passionate.
ReplyDelete