Mary Elizabeth Williams takes a very critical approach to explaining how the media giant Rachael Ray has amassed such a following despite having, in her opinion, an extremely annoying and overly zealous attitude. She argues in her article, Rachael Ray, My Dinner Hooker, that even with such an irritating demeanor, Rachael Ray’s message to mothers and wives everywhere is still valid and applicable and even helpful. Williams goes on to give personal reasons as to why Ray is both a burden and a blessing to mothers and their families, all while keeping light the tone and letting the reader know that what she writes is not that serious; just an interesting piece on a person who influences her life on a nearly daily basis.
Williams wrote this piece as an editorial for the online news source, Salon.com. Salon.com is a fairly popular site ranked 2,309 among all websites based on Alexa.com’s daily statistics. The site carries predominantly liberal news pieces with such staff writers as NPR’s Garrison Keiller and news on why the current Republican government is flawed. On Salon.com, she is the host of an online community forum known as Table Talk where registered users can comment on today’s issues ranging from politics to cooking, although she occasionally writes editorial works for the Community section of the site’s news. These editorials would speak directly to the online community of the website. Her piece on Rachael Ray would be one such editorial placed in the Home & Garden section of the forum, where readers who are interested in cooking and other household jobs can learn and share information.
The article’s main focus from the beginning brings the notion that Rachael Ray is an extremely annoying celebrity, and has spurred the creation of numerous hate sites despite being identified by Forbes “as the second most trusted person in America.” Williams wonders if she deserves either the hate or the praise. This is the question that drives the opening paragraph and grabs the reader’s attention, begging them to find out which treatment Ray really merits.
The author uses numerous cultural allusions to hook the reader into being comfortable and feeling relaxed by reminding them of things they know. The second line contains a perfect example of this. It says, “Google up ‘Rachael Ray’ and ‘hate’ and you’ll uncover an enthusiastic community…” Using Google, in particular, is an extraordinary way of including her audience within the piece. It is, after all, published on an online news site. The reader could very easily do what Williams suggests while reading this online. She even mentions some names and brands that would undoubtedly strike a chord with the reader: Oprah, The Food Network, Time Magazine, FHM, Red Bull, and even the Teen Choice Awards. The only issue with this is that all of these references are to American-focused names. This constrains some readers that may be from another country surfing the web for news.
The second paragraph begins William’s argument. She claims that people can be lumped into two categories, the one Rachael Ray is in and the one to which she belongs. This technique engages the reader because it forces them to identify with one of the two and very bluntly states her own stance on day-to-day life. This brings a constraint into the article. It is extremely possible that some of the readers are those who support Rachael Ray and do not dislike her or her “turbocharged personality” or that she can “pull a dinner out [her] ass”. Some readers may belong to the former category, unlike the author.
Williams continues to give her own opinion and tell the reader why so many people hate Rachael Ray. She writes, “Ray has no formal culinary training… She’s boasted that she’s completely unqualified for every job she ever had.” And that, “Unsurprisingly, she pisses a lot of people off.” However, in the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the reader begins to notice a change in the author’s tone. Williams begins using less insulting words and actually begins to compliment Ray. This allows the editorial to move on from more than just a complaining piece to one that takes more than one perspective and that argues consensually.
Slowly, Williams describes a facetious love/hate relationship between herself and Ray, one where Ray “grate[s] on [her] nerves like a block of Parmesan on a blade…” but is still “her fix.” She uses personal accounts of when Ray helped her in time of culinary need, that Ray is, “a regular girl who, like [her], was just trying to get dinner made without having a nervous breakdown.” What this type of writing does is try to play to some readers’ situations, in that they may be mothers or wives too.
Williams says that Ray’s work actually helps family life in America. She uses the statistic that, “less than half of American families sit down to eat together every night.” This is useful due to the claim stated earlier in the article which says that Ray helps women prepare a meal for their family in less than 30 minutes. Williams combines these two ideas logically and tells the reader about her own family and their dining habits, again, bringing a sense of comfort to the audience. Rachael Ray’s 30 minute cooking tips helped Williams on more than one occasion to get her family to sit down and eat together.
Mary Elizabeth Williams uses many tactics in this editorial, such as asking the reader questions, alluding to popular names, using humor to keep the piece light, and deceiving the reader at the beginning to keep the reader on their toes. She examines how it is that Rachael Ray is so successful and what her opinions of her were. More importantly, however, she argues very convincingly to give the reader good reason why Ray is not as bad as most people think and by the end of the editorial, it leaves the reader wondering if Williams ever actually hated Rachael Ray in any way.
No comments:
Post a Comment