Sometimes when I read the same writer for a while I get lulled into their habits and their style. And then sometimes I start thinking ... Sheesh. This writer would be super amazing if only they did ________. In looking at this week's work, what's missing from the work that would really make you love it? What's missing that would make this writer truly the best ever?
Thanks for your insights and ideas. Excellent work.
13 comments:
Article Title: "Telling Mideast Negotiators, ‘Have a Nice Life’" by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times Op-Ed, October 28, 2015
I honestly cannot find a lot to criticize about Mr. Friedman's writing in general. However, I do think he makes a couple of small mistakes every once in a while in his articles.
I think that Friedman sometimes assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader, especially when talking about Middle Eastern politics. Friedman's casual language, as I have written many times before, allows people to pick up his articles, understand his thesis, and gain some new opinion or understanding even without a huge amount of background knowledge. However, he sometimes mentions somewhat obscure people or ideas when discussing the Middle East that I do not believe the average American would understand. For example, in this article, he references the actions of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and tangentially refers to a system of Israeli plainclothes border guards of which I was personally not previously aware.
While Friedman's short, punchy style is his signature, I think many of his foreign-policy articles could appeal to a wider audience if he simply assumed a slightly smaller base of background knowledge on the part of his readers.
Article title: "A Sensible Version of Donald Trump" by David Brooks, New York Times Op-Ed, October 27, 2015
I have actually found that this week's article is my favorite thus far. I cannot pinpoint an exact component of this article that is missing, per say, however I did notice that I would have enjoyed it more had it included fewer sarcastic remarks about each political side. While these remarks maintained my interest as a reader, I found that these could also deter certain readers depending on their level of sensitivity regarding political beliefs.
Article Title: The Mystery of the Five Filmic Flops" by Joe Queenan, Saturday/Sunday October 31st - November 1st
I think that overall, Queenan's writing is impeccable. His biting sarcasm and his ability to make everyday life interesting is stupendous, but occasionally his pieces miss the mark. I felt that this week's was, ironically, somewhat of a flop. I think that Joe Queenan is the most interesting and humorous when he writes about people or human behavior (why people are chronically late, people being interested in fancy food, etc) but occasionally he attempts to write more about phenomenons than people. This week, he was examining why certain movies were flopping at the box office, and his argument seemed much more distant and detached than it normally is. I wish that Queenan would write more articles about people and specifically behaviors than movies, which, for some reason, he seems to write about a lot.
Article: "Fall of the House of Bush" by Maureen Dowd
This article was about the Bush "dynasty" and how Jeb, who was always his parents' favorite, has lost touch with the political landscape and started to slip.
On the whole, I liked the article and it was a fun read, but it came off as a little too silly. For example, Dowd refers to Jeb as "Jebbie," George H. W. Bush as "Poppy," and George W. Bush as "W." Dowd likes to keep her articles playful, but at times I just want to read something more formal.
Article: "Colin Kaepernick, 49ers offense continue to struggle"
Most of Paul Gutierrez's articles are not very long. He uses similar sentence structure through out each of his articles, which is an intriguing style of writing for his shorter articles. However, as Gutierrez's articles grow in length his sentence feel repetitive, reporting new information in the same way. I think that more variation in his sentence structure would make for a more provoking article.
Article: British and Irish Suicide Hotspots: Why Are They Allowed to Exist?
I was reading through this article and I was like, shoot, I can't find anything thats missing. Nolan provides good evidence, anecdotes, and has a great flow to his writing. However, when I got to the end, I realised his conclusion didn't really exist. I think this piece would have been much better if Nolan provided the reader with a conclusion that lead to another place and expanded on his ideas a bit. The piece is lacking a "so what." This article was so interesting but once I got to the end I wanted more exploration on the topic.
Article: "Bill O’Reilly’s blind spot" by Richard Cohen
Richard Cohen has a very casual and opinionated tone. He often uses sarcasm to display his opinions on subjects, usually reflecting how absurd he thinks another point of view is. Regardless of Cohen's argument, he always forces the reader to think differently and at least consider his statement. His tone is very effective in this sense, but at times it feels as if Cohen is too casual or brief when discussing fairly important topics. I sometimes feel that I want more from his writing, even if it is just a simple explanation or elaboration. Overall I enjoy his style very much, as it puts significant events and subjects in a lighter, easily digestible format.
Article: "For former Hells Ange Tim Medvetz, no mountain is too high to climb, even Everest"
This article truly made me feel something, however, I believe that Dwyre attempted to capture too much information in one article. He talked about Tim Medvetz's entire back story in the beginning and I wish he talked more about what he is doing now instead of spending more time on his history. He got into a bad motorcycle accident and the details of his injuries are relevant but I think the important work he is doing now, helping wounded veterans climb mountains, is extremely important and sends a strong message. Overall this piece was amazing, as it tells an amazing story about recovery and ambition.
Article: "Liberals on pot? That’s exactly what we need"
This article, like any others of Suzanne Moore's work, faces a problem: context. While this is a response piece, I feel that she should include some more pieces of evidence and information to attract readers not already educated on the topic at hand. While I think her writing is passionate and well-informed, I think some background information could make it seem more readable and professional.
Article: “The force awakens (in Ukraine): Darth Vader statue replaces Lenin monument” Lanre Bakare, The Guardian, October 23, 2015
Bakare’s writing style is a mixture between serious journalism reporting and gossip blog, combined with a hip hop/ pop culture blog. This unique style requires a balance of having a an abundance of information available for the reader, while still maintaining a casual tone and relationship with the reader. While his research and analysis is plentiful in his articles, I feel like he often forgets that someone is reading his writing. This week’s article was about a new Darth Vader statue that replaced a Vladimir Lenin in the Ukraine. This topic is a more light-hearted one, and yet, here is an excerpt: “Reports claim the original statue was made of gypsum, which had weakened over time, with Milov strengthening the structure and adding a helmet and cape made of titanium alloy.” While I’m sure the material of the statue is a key aspect of the topic, this sentence pretty much sets the tone for the entire piece. This writer would be amazing if only he attempted to break the fourth wall more often.
Article: "Trey Gowdy Just Elected Hillary Clinton President"
Taibbi's pieces are almost always sarcastic. He makes good points, and is educated about the subjects he writes about, but his articles are unending smears of one group of people or another. They're definitely entertaining, as they often ridicule one political party or another, but they become tedious to read after a while. If Taibbi could argue a point without humor, and sometimes without using ad hominem remarks, it would make for a refreshing read.
Article: The Curse of the Pixar Universe by Richard Brody for The New Yorker, 6.25.15
I chose to write about this particular article because it is Brody’s only article (so far) that I distinctly do not enjoy. In my anger while reading it, I am easily reminded of the things that Brody can leave out of his critiques, especially negative ones. What annoys me about this article is how pretentious it was—Brody acts like a thesaurus in absolutely tarnishing a feel-good movie by a studio that makes feel-good animated films. What’s missing is Brody’s ability (lack of, in this case) to step dow off of his golden pedestal and just feel a movie that was intended for people 65 years younger than he is. His arguments have merit—Inside Out does not literally represent the emotions of a toddler and of a child, but the film is conceptualizing difficult-to-grasp ideas for young children that would find the movie inaccessible were the protagonist a 72-year-old man. Brody needs to feel, then think, then write (at least in this case).
Article: The Trouble With Twitter.
Based on most of the articles I've read by Moran, the one thing I sometimes felt was missing was a more serious tone or approach. Sometimes her underlying messages hidden within humor were apparent, while others I felt as if the humor distracted me from the more serious subject that she may have been trying to suggest. Some articles I even felt as if there wasn't an underlying message. However it is interesting that we are writing about that this week because this week her article felt much more serious as she was commenting on Twitter's recent downfall which in itself is a more serious topic then hipsters or suburbs. She also took it to an even deeper level, exemplifying the importance of free speech. So ultimately, what I ultimately felt was missing, was extremely present in her more recent articles.
Post a Comment