Looking for Work vs What we Really Miss about the 1950s

Using your analytical skills choose one or two elements to focus on from each essay explain how these elements do or do not contribute to effective writing.

For the first essay titled “Looking for work”, I was interested in the portion about how the Catholic teacher put him in the dumb kid section, but the other references included in that section show him as nothing near stupid. The part where the globe was dented and he remarked “…denting the already troubled Africa” showed his knowledge of international history. Another is when he remarked that the teacher sitting the smart kids with the stupid ones would not work “…as though intelligence were contagious” displayed his knowledge of learning and the brain. Finally that he figured out how the teacher was sitting them in rows all show a much greater intelligence than most kids at that age. All of this was in direct contrast to how the presumably caring and smart teacher viewed the class.
For the second title titled “What we really miss about the 1950s”, I loved the element of research and documentation. From the Knight Rider polls to the overlay of numbers and information on family incomes, choices and the 1950s in relation to World War 2, I was very much enjoying every page. Little facts like that a family could afford a median priced home on 15-18 percent of their salary made me feel connected. Facts that allow the reader to draw a parallel really help to draw the reader into the story. I found this reading much more enjoyable than the first.

On the interpretive/rhetorical level of critical thinking, what do you think these authors are driving at?

For the article written by Mr. Soto, I had a difficult time understanding what he was driving at. Everything seemed jumbled and aimless. Starting out with ideals of fortune that turned to going swimming with a buddy and followed by being ditched by his brother? It all just seemed rather pointless. I know we should really take the time and look deep into the hidden meaning of writing, but when presented with an article like this, I find it difficult to want to dig deep. Maybe this guy is really famous, but it appears more like the emperor has no clothes.
For the article written by Ms. Coontz, I feel she was very clear in what she was driving at. She was clear at the beginning that there was a difference between the nostalgic memory of the a950s and the factual nature of that time. The author took the time in the article to present the facts and the feelings with care, so as not to offend either particular thought process. It felt as though there were two different colored shoestrings represent fact and memory. She then took the shoestrings and weaved them back and forth creating a bond that went beyond the factual nature of the article and really made you stop and consider the information in a different light. This was a really great article.

Given the nature of our text, do these pieces challenge or critique some cultural beliefs about American families?

The article on looking for work was enjoyable to read as a glimpse of life in the 1950’s. I do not see much of a challenge as I do not believe anyone lived the life of Leave it to Beaver. The show was as all things are on TV, a glammed up snapshot of life with problems that could be solved in 30 minutes minus commercials. The family depicted in his story seemed quite normal.
The second article did nothing but challenge or critique cultural beliefs about American families. I loved how she presented the facts about whites and their choices about time periods, while almost to a fault of understatement noting that blacks didn’t so much enjoy the earlier decades. It actually made me stop and chuckle as the reasons for their choices slowly entered my consciousness.

What do you find the most interesting about each of these pieces?

The part I found most interesting in the first story was the accolades thrown at this writer at the beginning by whomever was doing the setup for this story. I felt that his boisterous prologue did nothing but to create an expectation for the story that in the end did not hold up. Maybe if he put this in at the end, there might have been an opportunity to better share his thoughts. I say, show the work with minimum editorial and let the reader form thoughts for themselves.
Most interesting part of the second authors work was her ability to share two sides of a topic without judging either side as wrong. This would be difficult with any two sided conversation, but with an article that is so fact and research laden, it’s quite amazing. I liked the references to later decades that were made without losing the reader in what facts were relevant to what decade. I also enjoyed the connection she made to the readers of today and how common things today compared to things in earlier decades.