and “That Lean and Hungry Look”
When examining Natalie Angier’s essay “Why Men Don’t Last: Self Destruction as a way of Life’ and Suzanne Jordan’s essay ‘That Lean and Hungry Look,” many differences become apparent very quickly. Angier’s intended audience appears to be people who are concerned with men’s health issues overall, especially suicide; she writes to inform about the issue. Jordan’s intended audience initially seems to be more general but may be primarily overweight people who feel insecure about their weight; in contrast to Angier, Jordan writes to entertain and reassure. However, at a deeper level, the two essays have some similarities. Both writers challenge their readers to think more deeply about the assumptions they have and to consider alternative explanations. Both employ an appropriate tone for their audience and rhetorical strategies consistent with their purpose. Ultimately, although they differ in surface characteristics, the two essays parallel each other in their underlying structure.
In the opening paragraphs of “That Lean and Hungry Look,” Jordan quickly and firmly establishes the identity of her intended audience. When she states, “Caesar was right. Thin people need watching. I've been watching them for most of my adult life, and I don't like what I see” (1), she clearly places herself on the outside of any audience that might be thin people. By stating bluntly that she does not like thin people, she signals to any potential thin readers that this is not an article on their behalf. Just in case any thin readers still had doubts about the intended audience, Jordan concludes her first paragraph with the derogatory statement, “All of them are dangerous” (1). By the end of this opening paragraph, then, readers know that the content of the essay may well be a diatribe against thin people.
In addition to signaling who her intended audience is not, Jordan also takes pain to establish herself as part of the group she does intend to be the audience. In the fourth paragraph, Jordan places herself in the group of fat people who are most likely reading the article; she states, “Some people say the business about the jolly fat person is a myth, that all of us chubbies are neurotic, sick, sad people” (1). By using the first person plural “us,” she identifies herself as one of the fat people. This narrative strategy works to pull the audience in and make the essay feel inclusive rather than exclusive. Jordan self-identifies not as someone of normal weight who is lambasting both thin people and fat people; she belongs to the group who may well feel themselves to be the objects of derision or scorn. When she makes it clear that she is part of the fat group, she makes the readers feel safe. Jordan is not someone who will be telling the audience to count calories or exercise more; the author is one of them.
Jordan does not explicitly state her purpose in the article, but she makes it clear. She includes statements that reassure fat people of their value and worth; one could make a fairly strong case that she asserts the superiority of fat people over thin people. For example, Jordan credits fat people with greater insight into the nature of life when she says, “Fat people realize that life is illogical and unfair. They know very well that God is not in his heaven and all is not right with the world” (1). Jordan does not, however, take the tone of a self-empowerment guru who seeks simply to make people feel better about themselves. She uses humor throughout the essay to entertain her audience. Fairly early in the essay, Jordan comments that thin people “say things like "there aren't enough hours in the day." Fat people never say that. Fat people think the day is too damn long already” (1). This statement essentially breaks the ice so that the audience knows the essay is not entirely serious. The humor makes it easier to read the criticisms of thin people without vicariously being a verbal bully. By incorporating both humorous and comforting statements in the essay, Jordan entertains her audience while simultaneously reassuring them that they are valuable members of humanity.
Angier, on the other hand, takes a little longer to establish who her intended audience is. She devotes the first two paragraphs of her essay to describing first the good habits and then the bad habits of her father, noting that his bad habits led to his premature death. At this point a general audience would be wondering if the essay is going to discuss the dangers of ignoring potential cancer signs, or the dangers of angry family disputes, or something else entirely. Angier delays defining her purpose and her audience until the sixth paragraph, when she raises the issue of men’s mortality rates. When she says, “They [men] die off in greater numbers than women do at every stage of life, and thus their average life span is seven years shorter. Women may attempt suicide relatively more often, but in the United States, four times more men than women die from the act each year” (1), she signals two things. First, the topic will be suicide or possibly suicide as one cause of men’s early deaths. Second, any audience members who do not want to read about death will need to abandon the essay now, because it clearly is aimed at people who are interested in these issues.
Similar to what Jordan did in reinforcing who her audience is, Angier goes on in the next paragraph to discuss the higher rate of men’s death from auto accidents and homicide. Again, if the audience had any doubt that this essay will address serious issues, this paragraph removes that doubt. As the essay continues, each new paragraph deals with death or other very serious problems, so that by the end of the essay, the audience will consist primarily of people who are concerned about men’s health issues, especially suicide, and those who want to understand a little more about why men’s early mortality rates are higher than women’s.
As noted earlier, on the surface these two essays appear very different. Yet some similarities emerge upon a closer look. Even though Jordan’s essay uses a humorous tone, she gets her audience to challenge some of their assumptions when she asserts, “Some people say the business about the jolly fat person is a myth, that all of us chubbies are neurotic, sick, sad people. I disagree. Fat people may not be chortling all day long, but they're a hell of a lot nicer than the wizened and shriveled” (Jordan 1). Angier also provokes her audience to challenge some of their own assumptions, such as thinking there is no harm in discouraging boys from crying or expressing hurt, pain, or other more “sensitive” emotions. After giving expert opinions of the correlation between the expectation that men always appear strong and the frequency with which they destroy themselves, Angier quotes from an expert in the field: ''If you keep hammering it into a kid that he has to look tough and stop being a crybaby and a mama's boy, the boy will start creating a mask of bravado” (Angier 3). Both writers use language and tone appropriate to their audience; they both use everyday words and humor or seriousness as needed. In choosing these narrative strategies, they effectively engage their readers. Although their audience and purpose differ, they reach their audiences and achieve their purpose using similar strategies.
Works Cited
Angier, Natalie. “Why Men Don’t Last: Self-Destruction as a Way of Life.” The New York Times, 17 Feb. 1999. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Jordan, Suzanne Britt. “That Lean and Hungry Look.” N.d. Web. 11 Dec 2012.
