Dennard commences her essay by extending the claim generated from the title when stating that “the recipes are more than just formulas, they hold, concealed within them, memories.” She goes as far as to exclaim strong declarations quickly, which immediately focus the reader’s attention on what she is saying. This appears to be one of Dennard’s strengths throughout the novel, but at times questioning the author’s statements does more than bringing the author’s attention to them. Rather, they may also judge the validity of the author’s statements. Nevertheless, the author does clarify her usage of the word “crypt” from “Jacues Derrida’s” definition which ensures the reader not to think of catacombs, or underground cellars. A concern from the first page is that the reader may understand more from the title, than he may from the introductory paragraph as the author makes no clear thesis statement. Nonetheless, after reading the first, the author must be credited with being able to tell the reader what she is trying to say.
However, when continuing to the next few paragraphs, the author’s method of simple listing shows to exist, strongly. The difference between a succinct statement and a short-worded one is that the first makes a strong point with relevance, whereas the other may provide a weak claim which frequently in this case, proves to contain little or no relevance. On the second page the author places into the essay a long passage concerning Tita’s cooking. She continues in the next paragraph without assessment or interpretation of the passage. This implies that the author is simply clamping onto the essay evidence which she believes to have significance. On the contrary, the evidence often is lengthy and doesn’t focus on supporting the author’s statement. When including long paragraphs of evidence from the novel, the reader tends to find himself tucked into the novel and realizing he is caught in its plot, rather than paying attention to the author’s paper.
Additionally, the author chooses to present her essay almost as if she is citing her statements in every paragraph through a list, then continuing with a long paragraph or extract to support all the statements made. Without an explanation of the statement, the reader is left to decide upon their own interpretation of what the author is saying, hence, a weakening in the reader’s understanding of the essay. This method also confuses the reader as the reader himself is then put in charge of finding and matching the statements with the evidence, hence forgetting yet again, what the reader is trying to say. Another example of evidence included weakly is on page 6, when Dennard includes a passage of Mama Elena to support the statement of her being “ unable to” take care of Tita. In fact, the phrase stating that “Mama Elena’s milk dried up from the shock” suffices to support Dennard’s point being made. Including irrelevant and long paragraphs to serve as evidence clearly show to deteriorate the strength of this essay.
In essence, Dennard’s strengths show to exist in providing evidence for her statements, yet, whether or not the evidence is relevant proves to be a different issue. Her listing, inclusion of lengthy passages of support, even the usage of unexplained, non-assessed claims all add up to actually subtract from the essay’s general meaning. I firmly support Dennard’s attempt at investigating Esquivel’s connection between her recipes and underlying secrets. Nonetheless, I question the method by which Dennard was able to present her statements. At times, the points made by the author are well-taken and agreeable, yet the weak presentational skills strongly affect the reader’s impression of the author. Fundamentally, while the reader is capable of pulling the main point out of these statements and the evidence thrown at him, an improvement of presenting them would have significantly and beneficially affected the author’s essay.
