Erdrich imagines she'd like to be a confident skunk, but I think a creative rabbit would be a better fit, considering how often Erdrich jumps around the entire essay, which, past the idiosyncrasies, is a well-written and imaginative example of writing.
Not only does she jump writing styles and genres, she jumps from one idea to the next and will move from one event or era of her life to the next without guiding the reader along. This leaves the reader confused as to where Erdrich is in her life, and why she is there. Why is she sleeping in a football field? What led her to teach poetry? It'd be nice to have at least some back story and reasons for the events of the story.
Another confusing element she introduced several times in the essay were her allusions to theories and ideas about dreams and obstacles from other writers and thinkers. I don't really understand why she did this as she mostly just agreed when she could have proposed a different and original idea that would leave audiences more impressed.
This piece of writing, at the worst of times is idiosyncratic and slightly pretentious, but at the best of times is descriptive and imaginative.
While extremely vague, the writing overall is decent. Erdrich's style isn't my favourite, but I can see her talent and how other readers would really It's easy to picture what exactly she is describing. One can image a skunk fast asleep next to Erdrich. The reader can picture the many described wonders of nature.
It's also easy to agree or at least to see her point when she describes such things as how nice it would be to be a skunk and the how "silly" the concept of hunting game is. Erdrich makes her feelings known, and this essay is very much centered around her feelings and discontent with her surroundings.
Overall, I didn't personally enjoy the essay because I did find it so vague. However, I'm sure some readers can see that Erdrich does have writing talent and does choose her words well in many instances. I imagine that for a friend or fan who knows the author's back story and idiosyncrasies, this would be a delightful example of writing. However, the rest of us are left with a scattered array of well-written ideas.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Talk of the Town Essays
I liked the fact that both of these essays were so different. Not only did the authors possess entirely different viewpoints of the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, but there is a stark contrast between each writing style.
Of the two essays, I personally preferred the writing style of John Updike. I can see the reason I have heard him referenced and talked about and not Susan Sontag. His writing, while slightly scattered, is very creative and at times beautiful. He uses words very well to express ideas, and seems to be a very quotable writer. He took a patriotic stance in his essay, but I didn't feel like it was too overstated or excessively focused upon. He obviously takes pride in New York, and the reader can understand why to an extent. It would have been nicer for him to describe more about New York's resilience and glory. Overall, I thought this was a very good essay, mostly because of the excellent writing.
Susan Sontag got her opinion and reaction across more clearly than Updike, but didn't really leave the reader content with reading a well-written essay, like a reader would after reading the essay by Updike. Her essay was not very creative, original, or beautifully written. It was very forgettable, since the focus was not on creative writing or memorable quotes and phrases. It was an different viewpoint than the typical, but she didn't really offer any solutions or hypothetical situations like saying "The government should have reacted like this instead..." so it takes away from her credibility if she can only criticise and not improve things. It ended up being mostly a rant.
It was fascinating to read these two vastly different essays. Both have interesting narrative and writing styles, and it was helpful to read how two authors could react to the same topic and yet express themselves so differently.
Of the two essays, I personally preferred the writing style of John Updike. I can see the reason I have heard him referenced and talked about and not Susan Sontag. His writing, while slightly scattered, is very creative and at times beautiful. He uses words very well to express ideas, and seems to be a very quotable writer. He took a patriotic stance in his essay, but I didn't feel like it was too overstated or excessively focused upon. He obviously takes pride in New York, and the reader can understand why to an extent. It would have been nicer for him to describe more about New York's resilience and glory. Overall, I thought this was a very good essay, mostly because of the excellent writing.
Susan Sontag got her opinion and reaction across more clearly than Updike, but didn't really leave the reader content with reading a well-written essay, like a reader would after reading the essay by Updike. Her essay was not very creative, original, or beautifully written. It was very forgettable, since the focus was not on creative writing or memorable quotes and phrases. It was an different viewpoint than the typical, but she didn't really offer any solutions or hypothetical situations like saying "The government should have reacted like this instead..." so it takes away from her credibility if she can only criticise and not improve things. It ended up being mostly a rant.
It was fascinating to read these two vastly different essays. Both have interesting narrative and writing styles, and it was helpful to read how two authors could react to the same topic and yet express themselves so differently.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)