Both of the articles from the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" section in September of 2001, written by John Updike and Susan Sontag, are fairly eye-opening. The articles express different viewpoints on the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center twin towers.
The first article by John Updike explained his personal experience when witnessing the attacks from a window. He had compared the episode of horror to a television show on a day of "perfect reception." This in itself is an eery thought to be thinking. Watching terrible things go down right before his eyes, not knowing what to do made quite an impact on the writer. How is one meant to act when they witness such awful things happening not a mile away from where he or she stands?
Even before the attack, Updike had viewed the towers as something beautiful. The towers had been considerably large and hard to miss. With it's hugeness, they were beautiful pieces of architecture. As the attack was happening, Updike said that this was also a beautiful event to see. The skies were pure blue, and looked even more gorgeous in contrast to the blooming smoke clouds. The occurrence could even be called majestic or magical.
Since he had compared the attack to a television show, Updike had said that it mustn't be real, it could be fixed. I suppose if it truly were just another episode of some sick TV show, the damage could easily be reversed. Plot twist: it was all just a dream. Unfortunately, it wasn't a television show. It was reality.
Updike explained how he felt as a survivor. He knew that it was his duty, as well as all other survivor's duties, to eventually carry on living his life. Although it is painful to think of it that way, it is a somewhat clever way to exist. One must keep living, even if one does not forget the traumas.
My favorite definition of freedom I have ever heard is contained in this article, written by Updike. He said freedom is "mankind's elixir, even if a few turn it to poison." This line literally made me drop my pen as well as my jaw. I don't know what it is, but the way it is worded is beautifully brilliant. With this attack, America's freedom of motion was damaged. But, he clearly stated that the United States of America is definitely a country worth fighting for.
Updike ended the article in one of the most depressing ways one could end an article like this -- he said New York looked glorious, with the smoke still spouting from the ruins.
The second article written by Susan Sontag was quite different from the first. In my opinion, Susan seemed to be a bit rude about the attacks. She didn't discuss the actual event itself, she discussed the meaning and the details about it.
Sontag thought that the media was essentially filtering their information in order to make it seem as though the country was still strong, we can carry on smoothly. The media failed to mention that the attacks weren't cowardly, in fact, it was brave -- especially compared to the dastardly bombing the U.S. had been doing on Iraq.
In her article, Sontag basically said that the robotic Mr. President Bush was wrong for being optimistic about the traumatic event. The government may have been twisting the facts a little bit, but they must have been doing it for a reason. Obviously, Americans are very proud people. We need it to be said that we are going to be alright, that we are still standing strong. Sontag thinks differently.
Despite America's democracy, Sontag believes that it had turned into "psychotherapy" instead. She said that all the public office was doing was confidence-building and grief management. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but is that exactly a bad thing? Susan thinks so. She said, and I quote, "let's not be stupid together." I would like to applaud Susan on her wonderful vocabulary word, "stupid." Sontag's aggressive views on 9/11 are somewhat upsetting to me.
Sontag also claims that strong is not the only thing America has to be. My question to Susan is as follows: What else should America be then? Smart like Susan Sontag?! Sontag may have the right idea in her article, the American government did have a lot to talk about with it's policies towards other countries, but her delivery is just straight-up obnoxious.
Overall, these two articles were written with clear voices. Although I enjoyed John Updike's article better, they were both written skillfully with interesting word choices and phrases. My view on the World Trade Center twin tower bombings is in fact changed, at least just a little bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment