Summer Brennan Chapter 1 Analysis

Reading Respond Essay 2
As a French journalist and writer Robert Brasillach said in 1967 in Les Frères ennemis “History is written by the victors”. This quotation epitomizes the general idea of Chapter 12 of the Oyster war, The true story of a small farm, big politics, and the future of wilderness in America by Summer Brennan in 2015. Those who seem to have the most prominent and reliable influence in the controversy might be likely to win the battle. Indeed, entitled “David V. Goliath”, this chapter refers to the fight between rivals with unequal strengths. Summer Brennan manages to shed light on the interpretations’ complexity of the bone of contention. On different scales, she describes

how dominant protagonists succeed to raise their voices, give their explanation and thus, their own truth to the story. Furthermore, as the biblical reference points out, the giant Goliath has been defeated by the young peasant David, thanks to his boldness and ingenuity, by throwing him a stone that killed him. Therefore, the author wants to give some hope about individual willing to be part of the battle and fight to defend their stance. . Nevertheless, are all the actors led by a noble and disinterested cause? Are they all willing to disclose THE truth? Through their humanity, all the proponents seem to be driven by personal interests. Thus, we can argue that, beyond the fight for greater causes, the controversy might hide smaller individual and self-serving struggles.
First of all, the author depicts antagonisms that brings contradictory interpretations of the story.

Indeed, the local viewpoint challenges a national viewpoint, the insider point challenges the outsider viewpoint, and the individual point of view is against the group point of view. All these confrontations seem to be hermetic with no consensus that can be reachable. That is why Summer Brennan refers to the never-ending fight for Jerusalem-Est status between Isreal and Palestine concerning the four alternatives drafted by the DEIS. For instance, the local point of view, supported by the newspaper Light, fiercely defends the Oyster war since Corey Goodman owned the most important share of the newspaper, whereas a public opinion would nationally support the wilderness. On the contrary, Summer Brennan, who is considered as an “outsider”, since she just arrived in the city as the new reporter, doesn’t belong to the local community. It seems obvious through the “go back to New York” note to her that was said when she wanted to learn about the controversy in 2012. Therefore, we can argue that all groups’ interplays hide, in reality, individuals’ actions. And these actions require efficient

means.
Indeed, actors of this controversy are driven by their own interest and to hold the dominant viewpoint, they need some effective and reliable means.

A case in point is the action of lobbyist Dave Weiman, hired by the Lunnys to defend their stance at a national scale. It seems that he is more focused on the quality of his analogies by telling “the story of the story” rather and his personal carrier rather than a genuine commitment to the Lunny family’s future. Another example lies on how the Light is keen to disclose any scandal about a potential “case of government fraud” to seek the Pulitzer Price. Furthermore, building a dominant stance implies what Pierre Bourdieu in The form of Capital (1986) called ‘capitals’. Some Individuals with high economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capitals are more likely to have strength within society. For example, Correy Goodman combines economic capital by being the biggest Light’s donor, the cultural capital by being a well-known scientist and the social capital by a prominent social network, and the symbolic capital thanks to his prestige. Therefore, we might say that he has the authority. However, is it possible to get out of the dominant standpoint in order to reach an objective and reliable explanation as the title of this chapter might

suggest?
Throughout this chapter, an impression is given by the author that an existing objective and disinterested interpretation might be available. While scientific evidence turns out to be objective, some proponents tend to use them as an undisputable argument as the DEIS (the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) advises by saying that science “could inform policy”. Also, in Summer Brennan’s personal speech, it seems that she is trying to put forward her ability as a journalist to gather all the available information in to draw the most relevant conclusion about this controversy. However, scientific evidence as well as journalists’ investigation both rely on human behaviors and choices, which are de facto, biased.
To conclude, the outcome of this battle at this point remains unknown. We still don’t know who from the peasant David or the giant Goliath is going to win. None of the proponents has better weapons than a rock as they all are human. And their humanity makes them biased.