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.
I felt differently when reading The Talk of the Town, mainly because I don't think the author was referring to the tragic event, more like the city itself. New York City has always been a dream of mine to visit someday because it's truly amazing. People are--always-- doing something. The famous quote,"New York never sleeps" backs up the idea that the city is always running no matter what. 9/11, as devastating as it was, didn't stop the morning rush or the homeless men from begging in every alley. I think the author was commending the idea that New York, though just experienced something so grave, was able to continue it's daily routine regardless of the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteNow looking at a small quaint town like McFarland is a whole different story. If you spill your coffee in this town, everyone knows about it. Tragic events happened multiple times just last year and the following days--weeks even-- were nothing but depressing.
I think that's why it is better to grow up in a smaller community. It teaches you to care and that it is okay to stop, grieve and simply be human. Opposed to a enormously large community like New York, when everyone stops, it would be detrimental to not only the city but the country; so you go-on. It's awful---but I can also relate to the awe the author sees when looking upon the "glorious" city, because the strength it would take to not so simply go on is commendable.
I totally agree with you when talking about Sontag's piece, where you state that we have a very one sided view of the whole situation. We have been involved in the middle east for decades, often not helping them in their favor. I do believe that it is over the top when saying that the whole thing is justified, because it isn't. Nothing, or very few things, are justifiable when speaking about what was done to us on 9/11.
ReplyDelete