Please Read This Badboy...

College Essays
1

<p>Please someone read this short introdution to an essay analyzing Eric Schlosser’s purpose for writing Fast Food Nation & comapring it to Sinclair’s THe Jungle & let me know how it is?</p>

<p>It is a widely-held notion that history repeats itself, yet seldom does one recognize this pattern in the sprawling realm of literature. One of the most momentous instances of this theory is Upton Sinclair?s celebrated novel The Jungle from the age of American realism and its present-day complement Fast Food Nation, the incisive inquest by Eric Schlosser. Though nearly a century separates their respective publishing dates, the sociological and health-related concerns which these classics brazenly confront are astonishingly parallel. Despite the similarities in the issues they addressed, the authors? purposes behind these distinguished novels are immensely distinct. Whereas Sinclair attempted to strike the reader?s heart and cultivate compassion for American laborers, Schlosser possessed a more pragmatic approach toward developing public awareness. Eric Schlosser?s primary purpose behind writing Fast Food Nation is to uncover the concealed aspects of the fast food industry that lie beneath the surface while also profoundly examining the unprecedented influence this industry garnered so rapidly.<br>
The author?s arduous endeavor to accomplish these objectives was relatively successful on a general scope. Though his novel attracted a substantial amount of positive media coverage and helped raise awareness of food healthiness and cleanliness, it ultimately failed in prompting any new law enactments or serious public reformations.</p>

2

<p>IMO: overall, this is very impressive. (I haven’t read the Jungle, but I think you nailed the purpose, etc. of Fast Food Nation.) great writing style.<br>
A few minor suggestions:

  • I would suggest revising the first two sentences. In the second sentence, it is unclear if “this theory” is referring back to the idea that history repeats itself, which I think is what you intended, or if it is referring to the idea that repeating patterns are rarely found in literature. The clause in the first sentence, “yet seldom does one recognize this pattern in the sprawling realm of literature”, doesn’t add to your argument and confuses the reader.<br>
  • I would suggest using past tense when discussing Sinclair and present tense for Schlosser (as in “Schlosser possesses a more pragmatic approach” instead of “possessed”.)
  • I would eliminate the second-to-last sentence. It’s bland and redundant-sounding. Also, you end up judging his work as having “ultimately failed”, so don’t confuse the reader by trying to have it both ways.</p>