Normally, when I read the New York Times or The New Yorker or the Wall Street Journal (which I pay over $30 a month for the pleasure of perusing it), I don't have a large reaction to the piece. I always appreciate each article for its educational value, as I've become more aware of all sorts of social issues that I previously had no interest in until the rise of Trump (I've been devotedly reading current events for about the past year). Often, one of the criticisms I have is that the writers of the essays (they're always good writers, but only occasionally do you read a great one) is the fact that at the end of the piece, they are forced to come up with a neat, compact conclusion, which comes across as being forced and/or insincere. A bit too tidy for the complicated reality of his/her point(s), and sometimes the authors revert to using cliches, which ruins the whole experience of reading the article to begin with. (I realize that there is added pressure at the end of an article to preserve a lasting impression upon the reader.)
Normally, when you read a journalism article, you know it's going to be pretty straight forward, just a relaying of information, and perhaps a small dose (or a large dose, depending on the type of piece) of an opinion, expert or not. When I read Mark O'Connell's piece, I was immediately impressed because he was using imagery, that of the bus itself and that of the surrounding environment including birds and other creatures, to highlight symbolism for our relationship with death and also with the forces of nature (which we may not like and rebel against). This is genuinely excellent writing when an author dares you to dig deeper into his/her work. So, as moved as I was, I searched around for a while, and finally found O'Connell's email address, and I wrote him a short message. He actually responded just a few minutes ago, and it was a very nice email.
If you haven't read it, please do.
No comments:
Post a Comment