2: It's a profile essay in the sense that it paints a word-picture of the perspectives/careers of multiple individuals. most notably: Tilikum the orca, Ken Balcomb the human, Don Goldsberry the demon human, and, of course, Dawn Brancheau the human.
3: The author uses active language to paint a person (in this case, Don Goldsberry) in a specific light: "“I’m only speaking with you because those idiots out there, mainly the politicians, want to release all the killer whales,” he growls." the usage of the word "growls" instead of something more neutral like "said" gives the reader an image of Don as an angry, malicious man. Honestly, the way it's written kinda reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge. This depiction of someone who treaded dangerously close to animal poacher territory fits into the larger whole of the article which talks about the effect captivity has on intelligent, social animals.
4: Based on description, I would contrast them as such: Goldsberry is a true-blooded capitalist who won't let some trivial thing like "ethics" get in the way of a juicy profit: "“I would go into SeaWorld and say, ‘I need a quarter of a million’ or ‘a half-million dollars,’ and they put it in my suitcase,” he says with a grin. “It was good, catching animals. It was exciting. I was the best in the world. There is no question about it.”". Balcomb, on the flipside, seems to just be a lovable orca nerd: "Since then, he’s become the Southern Residents’ scientific godfather, noting every birth and death, and plotting family connections."
5: I think the argument the article makes is the inherent cruelty of keeping orcas in captivity. I'm not a zoo abolitionist but even so it feels wrong to keep such intelligent animals in such unnatural, mind-breaking conditions.
Comments
Post a Comment