I am the Cow

After reading the first part of Michael Pollen's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" I was taken aback by how calmly he writes, especially compared to Anthony Bourdain in "A Cook's Tour". When Bourdain was in Tokyo he experienced a breakfast that he absolutely hated and he wrote, "All I wanted to do was hurl myself through the paper walls and straight off the edge of the mountain" (152). I thought this was definitely over the top and ridiculous. Bourdain's use of exaggeration is a part of his style and in his book it works to his benefit especially in creating himself as a character in his travels.

On the other hand, when Pollen relays atrocities of the 'industrial-food system' he more or less states the facts plainly. Sometimes he adds a characteristic anecdote but it's always closer to the truth of the matter than it is to ridiculousness. It might be because the horrible facts in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" tend to speak for themselves. Or maybe his subject matter isn't as powerful when reduced to dramatics. I appreciate this lack of drama; however, I was absolutely heartbroken almost the entire time I spent reading the first part of Pollen's book.  I wondered how much Pollen's heart hurt too and why it didn't always show if it did. 

Pollen's style of not always showing his emotions gives him a higher quality of credibility than Bourdain's. His book is more research based and more 'journalistic' in nature. I'm not claiming that it's 'better' but because of Pollen's style his book is immediately more credible. Credibility is also much more important to Pollen's subject matter. The issue of the 'industrial-food system' is incredibly serious and important to me so I really appreciated how Pollen wrote about it. The way he breaks down such a complex issue is definitely helpful and at the same time he shows the reader how complex it is. 


Pollen also does an excellent of representing both sides of the issue while clearly standing on one side over the other. This is a great example of one of the many types of 'journalism'. For me, it shows how you can let the other side have the same type of legitimacy as your own. This is a great technique of argumentation too. Instead of winning the agreement of readers by showing how terrible the 'bad guys' are Pollen wins me over by letting the facts speak for themselves (along with a little bias or at least a specific perspective) but by also putting me in the mind of the other argument so I can understand where it comes from. 


Pollen says that you can't argue with the economic logic of the 'industrial-food system' but you can argue with a different set of tools as well as a variation on the economics. Like how the economic logic argues that the industrial system saves the consumer money and gives them 'variety' but also from a money standpoint, the industrial system wastes more than the natural system and indirectly costs much more when you consider the price of energy. 


I am still trying to figure out what I will do with this new information I have accumulated after reading part 1 of the dilemma all I know for now is that I feel sick like the cows who can't eat grass. :*(