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.
I also liked the writing style of Updike better than the writing style of Sontag. Updike created vivid images in my head with his detailed descriptions. Sontag was so negative that it annoyed me instead of convincing me of anything. I agree that she would have made a stronger point if she had offered alternate solutions rather than just criticizing the way the situation was handled.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Updike's article was much better written than Sontag's. Updike's eloquent writing style left the reader wanting more. Whereas Updike's article was informative and refined, Sontag's article was biased and rough. The only purpose of Sontag's article was to repeatedly criticize the United States Government; furthermore, she offered no solutions and therefore lost credibility.
ReplyDeleteIt seems unanimous that Updike's article was more articulate than Sontag's, but Sontag's article was more 'purpose' oriented than Updike's. Because of this, I'd agree that updike's was more enjoyable. But I disagree with you that Sontag's article did get me thinking about how the United States handled the situation after reading, not just forget about it.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Updike's article better. He was able to paint a picture that made you feel like you were actually there, on location on that tragic day. Sontag seemed to only criticize our government, so without any possible solutions, it just seemed like a whining essay with no positive thoughts.
ReplyDelete