Today in class we did our first day of discussing research
on statistical information of Jon Krakauer’s Missoula. While some groups hadn’t prepared correctly, it still led
to an interesting discussion.
The first chapter, annotated by Sydney and Jackson, had a
lot of good statistical information, which will definitely be useful in the
future and for the annotated bibliography. Jackson brought up a good point that
Krakauer uses some interesting sources, such as government websites and other
fact-based websites; however, the strongest source of facts is from the stories
being told on a first-account basis. I agree with Jackson that these accounts
give detail no statistic ever could, and allow the reader/listener to
understand the emotion and feeling a victim feels. Statistics are cold,
scientific information, they do not tell emotions, they do not tell what it
feels like, and they simply give us facts. When there is a story being told, a
vivid image rushes through the reader’s head, as if they are there, listening
to what is happening in real life, and they feel the emotion exploding from the
page.
Sydney also made good points from a newspaper, The Missoulian, which led us to the
discussion of reliable sources and finding sources based on the text. We
learned it is important to search through the bibliography Krakauer lists and
search for the source; however, if the source isn’t listed, it is wise to look
up the fact online and compare a few reputable sources. When finding any
statistic in the book, even if sourced, it is still a smart idea to look up the
statistic online and compare sources, statistics, and confirm the fact being
presented.
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 had a lot of personal accounts, and
mostly just demonstrated what happened with a few different cases. Laden within
these chapters was the process of a rape kit, and the facts of what happens
when a rape victim visits the hospital. Chapter 5 however, had a lot of strong
statistical information, along with information about how police react,
information being reported, and the process of reporting. We also discussed
watching the documentary, “The Hunting Ground” on Netflix, something I will
probably do tonight!
Eventually we moved on to some deeper conversation, and
through this conversation I asked myself asking a disturbing question. Why is
it that someone can’t say they were “too drunk to make a logical decision” when
they shot their roommate, but can say they were “too drunk and thought it was
consensual” when raping someone? I believe this shows that the justice system
fails us, because it is allowing assailants to use an excuse that would not be
allowed as an excuse in any other context. The idea of this bothers me to my
core, and is something that needs to change.
We talked about important rhetorical filters to use while
reading part two, including: ethos, pathos, and logos. This is important when
being applied to different people such as rapists, targets, police, attorneys,
and judges/courts. It is important that I remember to ask myself things like
how do these people present themselves? What are their arguments? What are they
saying to make these arguments? What is the logic behind their arguments (if
any)? What is the appeal to emotion that is happening? All of these questions
are important when reading through part two, the rest of the book, and any
other readings I do.
On a side note, we talked a lot about the standard of care
in the medical field and medical malpractice suits. I especially enjoyed this
conversation, as I plan to go into medical malpractice law. So learning more on
the subject and discussing it in class added joy to my day!
