Both of these well written pieces by Updike and Sontag display the relevance of one of the most lamentable events in American history, 911. Updike's piece focuses on where he was and what his immediate intake of the situation was when the tragic events took place. I find it terrifying that he was so close to the towers when it happened and I don't think I would react the same way he did, with a more observant, curious approach. My reaction would have been to call everyone I know/ care about and tell them I am fine and ask them (if they were in the vicinity) if they are okay. I was curious as to why he addressed the entire situation at the very end where he says "New York looked glorious" because for me personally it came off as a triumphant statement as if something great just had happened, when it was the complete opposite. I would not be surprised if he received criticism for that.
Sontag's honesty came out as cheeky and more leaning towards al-Qaeda, almost as if she was trying to justify their actions. I find her piece extremely controversial, but I totally get where she is coming from. Every story has two or more sides to it. Most of us here in the U.S. have most likely only heard the version in which we were innocent and unexpectedly attacked for no apparent reason. Songtag's testimony raises up questions like "Did we really not do anything?", or "Are we really innocent?", and sadly the answer is "no". The U.S. has been involved in the Middle East for a long time, even before the 911 attack happened, and our Special Forces certainly killed many innocent people that were not involved with al-Qaeda in any way.
Despite of the strong sentiments displayed in both of these well-written essays, I strongly believe that a good literary piece is written with a plethora of passion and interest for the subject. It is not for nothing that it is taught that when writing, honesty and interest for the topic is a must have, and at the end of the day, that is what separates an average writer from a good writer.
