After reading the two essays by John Updike and Susan Sontag, the most striking thing I noticed was the difference in what the author took out of 9/11. It was like day and night reading the two papers. Their opinions can be summarized as the following: Updike took a more standard, remorseful look at the twin tower bombings while Sontag expressed a "we had this coming to us" attitude which borderline defended the terrorists.
Some examples of that support my opinions of Updike's writing are laced throughout his essay. He takes a very dramatic approach to 9/11 by recounting where he was, what he was doing, etc. Then later on in the essay he attempts to inspire some nationalism in the reader by saying things such as "this is a country worth fighting for". When these aspects of his paper are analyzed along with his overall attitude during the essay, it becomes clear that Updike falls in with the majority of Americans after 9/11- horrified by the bombings but also very patriotic.
While Updike may be the voice of the majority, Sontag most certainly is not. Her essay practically stood up for the terrorists through the manner in which the essay was written as well as the actual writing in the paper. Although this isn't to say she necessarily approved of the bombings, just that she understood them. An example of this is when Sontag talks about how the terrorists are not cowards, and America is actually the coward since they bomb countries such as Iraq where retalliation is impossible for the Iraqi people. Near the end of her power, she hints at what she thinks America needs to be. Sontag states "Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be". I believe she is saying that America needs to not just be a military force, but a force that will realize the consequences of their actions and make decisions accordingly. With this in mind, It's clear that Sontag is less concerned with the actual affects of the bombing and more concerned with the why.
So which paper did a better job of capturing 9/11 and the events of that day? Well it really depends what the reader is looking for. Updike's essay was brilliant in the way that it described the bombings and took the reader back in time to that day. You could almost hear the crash of the planes through the paper and feel the shivers down your spine. Sontag's essay on the other hand provides valuable information as to how America can improve and learn from the bombings. She firmly backs her opinions with valid arguments and makes the reader think.
In my completely subjective view, I enjoyed Sontag's paper more simply because it was a more unconvential view of 9/11 that left the reader believing that change needs to be made. Any paper that can accomplish that is a successful paper in my mind. If I had one critique about the essay, it would be that I thought she was rather cold in her writing. Sontag offered no condolences for the victims nor sadness of any kind. In my opinion this is a flaw because empathy is a key factor in writing. Sontag would have done well to sympathize with her audience in the beginning to capture their attention. Then she could have gone into her main point. As it stands, the first time I read the paper I felt almost angry at how blunt she was. Despite this, Sontag wrote a fantastic paper providing a unique view on 9/11.
With all the information presented, there is no doubt that Updike and Sontag both wrote two vastly different yet elegant papers that entrance the reader and take them deep into the events of September 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment