Editorial Outside Reading: November 15

Editorial Outside Reading

“Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage” by Malcolm Gladwell

The New Yorker October 19, 2009

In “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage,” Malcolm Gladwell condemns the football program and links it to dogfighting, a sport many consider to be cruel.  In his editorial, Gladwell’s underlying argument is that football and dogfighting are in fact quite similar, and he points out that brain damage is often a result of America’s favorite sport.  Gladwell employs many techniques this piece, and ultimately constructs a well-crafted and persuasive essay.

In this editorial, Gladwell paints a vivid picture for his reader.  He begins “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage” with an account of Kyle Turley, a professional football player whose career has started to impact other areas of his life.  Gladwell writes this account as a story and is thus able to effectively capture the reader’s attention.  He also employs several onomatopoeias that allow the reader to feel as if they themselves are a part of Kyle’s Turley life.  However, the majority of his editorial is not an attempt to tell the reader a story.  Gladwell quickly navigates away from the narrative he begins with, and introduces dogfighting.  In doing so, Gladwell is able to play to the emotions of his reader; by linking football to something that most would agree is horrendous, he effectively sets up his thesis.  Gladwell also provides extensive medical data backing up his claims.  As a result, he is able to smoothly guide his reader from claim to claim, ultimately arriving back at his thesis.

            By adopting a powerful voice, Gladwell magnifies the severity of the brain damage football can cause.  He employs severe diction that helps to create a harsh tone.  The questions he poses directly to the reader also help him to effectively communicate the dangers of football, but this informality would be inappropriate for an AP essay.  Although they create an informal atmosphere, these questions ultimately are a strength of Gladwell’s.  His other strengths include clarity, precision, and his ability to connect with the reader.  Gladwell’s only weakness, on the other hand, is his extensive use of narration.  Although examples are important, I think Gladwell could have eliminated some of the examples he gave and instead provided more of his own insight into the brain damage football can cause.

            As mentioned, Gladwell is able to play to the reader’s emotions.  In the end of “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage,” Gladwell essentially blames the reader for the lack of action taken to help prevent this brain damage.  “Boxers ran a twenty-per-cent risk of dementia.  Yet boxers continue to box.  Why?  Because people still go to boxing matches” (9).  As a result, Gladwell’s argument, although informal, is effective.  He not only persuades the reader that his thesis is correct, but he forces them to reevaluate their own contributions to the brain damage that athletes often face.  In doing so, Gladwell left little room for doubt in my mind.