Skunks....and Dreams...

I don't really know if I actually understand "Skunk Dreams" at all, but I do know that I understand more now that I have finished the whole story (which...I guess is really obvious). At first I had no idea where it was going. She started out talking about this incident where a skunk fell asleep on her. With that, though, she was able to move to dreams. In a way, dreams moved the rest of the story along. Through her dream about a fence with wilderness beyond it, she realized that she desired wilderness.

It was with this idea of desire that she could bring up the point that when people desire things, it is required that there is an obstacle. In her case, her obstacle was the fence that she had to get past. Near the end of the story, she gets past that obstacle and gets to see all kinds of animals. It is then that she puts together the thought that animals are put there to die. They have the one pleasure to live. Then finally Erdrich made a complete circle back to the skunk by talking about how she would choose to be a skunk out of all the animals in the world.

I'm not really sure if I liked the story or not. To me it seemed all over the place, but at the same time it was pulled together nicely (I know...that probably doesn't make sense...). Even the two-word title summarized it in a unique, but correct way. Skunks and dreams were what it was all about. Another thing that I liked about the story was how it did start with the skunk story and end with a statement about skunks. I thought that made the story make a little more sense.

Louise Erdrich also succeeded in using a really great word choice. The verbs and adjectives were an awesome addition to the story. "The unkillable and fiercely contorted trees of old orchards, those revenants, spooked me when I walked in the woods. The blasted limbs spread a white lace cold as fire in the spring, and the odor of the blossoms was furiously spectral, sweet." This is an example of how Erdrich used creative verbs and adjectives to help her with the story. I would go as far to say that even though I didn't completely understand what the point of the story was, I enjoyed how it was written and some of the different points made.

The Different Views of an American Tragedy

Updike and Sontag both seemed to show unique and intriguing viewpoints of the attack on the World Trade Center. Updike focused more on being a witness of the event. He explained what he saw in a way that really captured what one would be thinking if they saw such a tragic occurrence. On the other side, there is Sontag. She criticized the government of the United States of America and how they are handling the situation. Sontag tried to make an understanding of why the attack happened.

Updike's view made more sense to me. I liked it better in the way that it showed how America could move forward and push through setbacks that it might run into. It was a positive view after all of the problems that had presented themselves. He made the decision to share his story and his experience rather than dwell on who was at fault and the reasons for the attack. As I read this piece, I guess I felt a little more relaxed.

On the other hand, Sontag had some good points, but she was way too negative. She decided to focus too much on what everyone was doing wrong rather than what people were doing right. At a time like this, it seems like the country should have been trying to stick together more. She did a great job of wording things in a way to allow anyone to understand, and she was smart for trying to look at all sides, but she could have been a little more positive and relaxed.