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.
I agree with you, Megan. I thought that Sontag was definitely a little too negative for me. And like you said, considering what happened, she should have been encouraging and inspiring people so that there would actually be a little of a positive vibe.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Sontag was way too negative. Her entire essay consisted of her stating and restating everything that she thinks our government does wrong. There's nothing wrong with her disagreeing with our government, but her article contained no valuable alternatives.
ReplyDelete