I wonder if the author knows why this piece is so good.

It had the instant appeal of being about a way of life that I could understand but don't really know. Thus it had the qualities of both distance and proximity; I could easily relate and yet have the expectation that I would learn something new.

The narrator's voice had a growing appeal. What it lacked in expression was more than made up for by the asides she drew into the main story line -- her initial plans to be a translator, the interests of her children. The significance of those asides was made clear at the end.

The story line had an obvious point -- would the ranch have enough pregnant heifers. You had to listen just to find out.

The family scenes made the people seem very real. The vet who smiled; the pay in chili and apple pie; the desire to nap after lunch.

The aside about Mad Cow could have seemed shoehorned, but the way it was set up "Just one cow" resonated with the undercurrent of chance that was the undercurrent of the entire story -- falling in love, an infertile bull, etc.

Ultimately, the piece resolves as a clear personal statement about why some people choose to leave themselves vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. The role of chance that started the piece "I fell in love with the guy next door" becomes part of the package deal of being open to the forces that make life worth living.

On top of the narrative flow and the personal touch, one has to appreciate that the piece has great structure and internal coherence. And it never seems forced.

The theme is great and the movie clips are excellent. The piece twists the knife just the right amount when it mixes in the cheesiest film sound tracks at just the right moment.

That said, the piece suffers from the lack of perspectives from people who remember watching the films when they were kids. Or from teachers who played the films in their classrooms. We hear only two types of voices in the piece; that of the producer and that of "analyst/experts" (in this case, a person who compiled DVD's of the films and a social critic of some sort.)

The problem with this approach is that it filters out a lot of emotional punch. These films remain at a distance from the listener in both time and place. The result is an intellecutal and aesthetic payload in which personal or emotional reactions are implied but not actually felt.