How could any American forget the life-changing, earth-shattering events of September 11th, 2001? In the immediate aftermath of the tragic attacks, the airline industry would come close to collapse, new-found racial stereotypes would surface, and paranoia would ensue. In the wake of these events there would surely be mixed emotions and feelings, yet no two people would ever share the same outlook. The New Yorker would publish two articles in their "Talk of the Town" section; one by John Updike and the other by Susan Sontag.
9/11's events are certainly infamous and could hardly ever be described under positive connotation; Updike and Sontag take two very different approaches to describe, analyze, and ultimately write two distinct articles that display the varying types of reactions to the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Updike's article is a more artistic seeming piece that focuses on depicting what he witnessed from an apartment in Brooklyn a short ways away from the towers. With such descriptive and thought provoking statements like, " We knew we had just witnessed thousands of deaths; we clung to each other as if we ourselves were falling," its difficult not to relive the day. Updike spends little time placing blame and looking for answers as he instead seems to focus on what exactly happened. Updike is able to point out the frailty of man and society as a whole while at the same time shows a great deal of pride in his city. Updike takes a tragedy and analyzes the effects of it and creates an image of patriotism and fear rising from the ashes of the World Trade Center to create a new lifestyle in America unlike any before.
Far from Updike's style of writing and seemingly poetic description of tragedy is Susan Sontag's article on the attacks. In Sontag's writing, there is little time for mourning or sympathy and instead a near instant jump into sarcasm and a strange ode to the attackers. Sontag makes it a point to show some kind of respect towards the hijackers and despite not stating it herself makes the divine attack seem as if it were some sort of noble quest. While Sontag makes a valid point that America was not o.k as it may have seemed, declaring the president a robot-like being and the members of congress spineless, policy-jumping politician is certainly no method of addressing the much larger issues at hand. The leaders of our government at the times of these attacks were undoubtedly terrified and confused. Shock and panic surely follows an unprecedented attack such as the one on the fateful morning of September 11th. The main purpose of Sontag's message is not to console or find strength for the American people, but rather to point out further flaws and policies that have collectively manifested themselves in the form of several hateful hijackers onboard four different planes on a seemingly normal Tuesday morning. Sontag points out something Americans may need to hear but don't wish to, yet she sounds increasingly condescending throughout the article.
The two featured articles show two contrasting stories on the subject. Updike's imagery compared to Sontag's dose of reality shows that in dark times, there is no right way to think and all thoughts are rational.
Hi Jed,
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of your response to me was the part regarding Sontag’s attacks on politicians in Washington on their poor leadership immediately after the attacks. You make the case that our representatives should not be held to any higher standards than anyone else in the days following 9/11. They are human also, and were just as deeply affected by the thousands of deaths as the rest of the country. This seems like a logical argument. However, I would say that it is also their job and responsibility as lawmakers and leaders to hold themselves to higher levels of critical thinking and leadership. They ran office knowing that they would be counted on to show sound judgement in times of crisis. Maybe she does go about her accusations a little too harshly and condescendingly. Maybe personal attacks were not what were needed at the time that this was written. But is it also possible that maybe a little shock is what readers and people in general needed at that point? Perhaps her reasoning for writing in such a style was not so much to attack politicians as people, but to tell readers that a different kind of thinking is required in crisis.
P.S.: Nice picture.