The two essays from The New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" section, in my opinion, were very well written. I especially loved how the first essay was told through the eyes of a witness of 9/11, and the second essay criticized the government's reactions to the attack. The two contrasted yet complimented each other perfectly.
The first essay was written by John Updike who told his story about witnessing the attacks on the twin towers. Updike explained that he was looking out the window of his tenth-floor apartment in Brooklyn Heights when the planes crashed into the two towers. I thought his description, "smoke speckled with bits of paper curled into the cloudless sky..." was a great way of showing us with words what he was seeing. As the essay went on, he continued to paint beautiful, yet horrific images to explain how tragic this event actually was. However tragic and horrifying the attacks on 9/11 were, I liked how he ended the essay on a positive note; it was kind of a happy ending.
"...walking around Brooklyn Heights that afternoon, as ash drifted in the air and cars
were few and open-air lunches continued as usual on Montague Street, renewed the
impression that, with all its failings, this is a country worth fighting for."
The second essay was much less charming. This seems to have been written for one reason and one reason only: to complain about the government. The author Susan Sontag explained how she believed that the government needed to stop saying that "our country is strong," and that it also needed to be less comforting. She states that the public needed to know the reality of what was happening and accuses the political leaders of concealing the truth of the situation. I do agree that, as the people of this country, we deserve to know what is really going on, but after a terrifying event like 9/11, we, as a nation, needed the government to act as a mother hen and comfort us and tell us things will be okay. Besides the uprising of slavery and the Depression, September 11th was probably the darkest day in American history; an untouchable super-power was brought to its knees by a couple of terrorits. This was a time where we needed the government to lead, unify, and guide us out of the aftermath. Sorry Susan, but we weren't ready to hear all of the horror stories of war that were yet to come.
I would have to strongly disagree. The government wasn't formed to be a "mother hen" or a psychiatrist--in fact it was formed to be a representative of the people. I can't help but feel a bit peeved about our country's actions at most times, and its over the top reactions to the very few tragic incidents brought inside its borders. Besides, i feel like we always have it coming because of the countless oil wars and greedy pursuits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin in that the government is not there to guide the people; rather, it is there to represent the people. "Guiding the people" implies that they are persuading or influencing people's opinions. This is not the government's job. We elect officials to protect our beliefs, not change them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Austin and I agree on the role of the government, I agree with Halle in saying that the government responded accordingly to the terrorist attacks. When terrorists attack America, we need to unite together and fight to protect our country.
I agree with you Halle, the second article wasn't as "charming" as Updike's. I think many people in this nation liked that the government was supportive and hopeful. Susan Sontag presented a different perspective at a time where many would rather read hopeful and/or patriotic essays. Still, all opinions and perspectives should be considered and I agree that they contrasted and complimented eachother very well.
ReplyDelete