This question is a subjective question (any reader can
have a very different view on the answer based upon individual interpretation of the
article and their understanding of it). That being said, the answer to the question will
be subjective as well. What this means it that some may argue that beginning the article
with the historical background would change it dramatically while others would say it
would not change it at all.
This being said, I do not
believe that beginning the article with historical background would engage the typical
reader. Many people, when faced with historical information, may find the article
uninteresting and not be engaged.
One is looking for
engagement when reading. In the same way, one is looking to be drawn in immediately when
reading. Too many times, historical information simply turns too many people off to
it.
Therefore, by beginning her article with "Daniel
Kennedy remembers when he still thought that valedictorians were a good thing", Talbot
has the chance to draw more readers in given they may have remembered the fight, or been
involved in the fight, for the title Valedictorian.
No comments:
Post a Comment