CONCUSSION Character Study & Author Analysis
Name Aditi Vijendra, Vedika Singhania, Alina Salem
Directions: Cite who the following characters/real life people are and then analyze the listed relationships. In addition, include one piece of evidence from the book to support your points.
Dr. Bennet Omalu
Introverted
Ambitious
Persistent
Quirky
Naive
Evidence: “And guess what, I would leave. I would come to the USA. The land of perfection and excellence. A land where mankind is at its best. The land of milk and honey” (Laskas 51).
This shows how Bennet was very naive and believed that America was the land of “perfection” and “milk and honey”
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Boisterous
Aggressive
Evidence: “‘Okay.” ‘Eat some pastries,’ Wecht said. ‘No,
…show more content…
Chris Nowinski
Lucrative
Cheater
Attempts to take credit for Omalu’s work
Takes advantage of Bennet
Evidence: “At this point, he still trusted Nowinski. He thought Nowinski was simply a loud and brash angel. He admired loud and brash angels. He figured he and Nowinski were alike in that way, outcasts fighting for legitimacy and finally finding some” (Laskas 179).
This quote demonstrates how Bennet was fooled by Nowinski and how this made it very easy for Nowinski to take advantage of him and claim credit for his work
Jason Luckasevic
Brother of Omalu’s former co-worker
Good lawyer
Efficient
Good friend of Omalu
Unsure of himself as a lawyer
Evidence: On pages 183-184, Omalu and Luckasevic are talking about how they both know that the NFL is committing a huge fraud by lying about CTE. Bennet is persistently trying to convince him to sue the NFL, since he knows that Luckasevic will win. But Luckasevic is unsure of doing something as big as that.
Persistent
Relationships:
Omalu and his family
…show more content…
This shows how Nowinski went behind Omalu’s back when they were working with each other.
Author Analysis
Consider how the author Jeanne Marie Laskas, an investigative journalist, put together this story that is not objective. Analyze the author’s style. Include at least four different points and bullet point these.
The story is written from an omniscient perspective.
Almost as if it was an investigative journal because of amount of detail and information given, such as details of Bennet’s family background, his personality traits, his affiliations, etc.
The story started with present court case, went back to before Bennet was born, and worked its way, chronologically back to present.
This is much like investigative journalism because it is very chronological and specific
The story is subjective even though due to Laskas’ background in investigative journalism, we would expect an objective story
This could possibly be because she wanted to switch things up and write in a perspective that she is not used to or that she doesn’t do for a living to make it more enjoyable for