The Gendarme
Mark Mustian
Reviewed by Mike Peed in the New York Times
The author of the review seemed to like “The Gendarme” quite a bit, or so it seemed in his review. But I found a few parts of his review struck me as somewhat odd. The title for the review for the book “The Gendarme” really set up the tone for this particular review. What an interesting way to title a piece “Death March” this titles really snaps the readers attention and makes them somewhat wary of what they are about to read. I believe that the best type of criticism that fits this review is Postcolonial Criticism. The review seems to focus heavily on the main characters cultural identity. Which he very well should focus on, because that is what this book is all about. Peed uses very strong and strange words to convey what appears to be his very strong emotions about this book. He used the word precipitate to explain how this tumor in the main characters brain was returning memories to him. When we read precipitate we normal relate to the weather, where here he relates it to “hurling down”. This book review is pointedly interested in the racism that is happening in this book, particular the Armenian Genocide. Another classic case of European dominance and cruelty over a race that is viewed as weak and subordinate. This particular review seems to hit most of the most important points for Postcolonial Criticism.
Reviewed by Mike Peed in the New York Times
The author of the review seemed to like “The Gendarme” quite a bit, or so it seemed in his review. But I found a few parts of his review struck me as somewhat odd. The title for the review for the book “The Gendarme” really set up the tone for this particular review. What an interesting way to title a piece “Death March” this titles really snaps the readers attention and makes them somewhat wary of what they are about to read. I believe that the best type of criticism that fits this review is Postcolonial Criticism. The review seems to focus heavily on the main characters cultural identity. Which he very well should focus on, because that is what this book is all about. Peed uses very strong and strange words to convey what appears to be his very strong emotions about this book. He used the word precipitate to explain how this tumor in the main characters brain was returning memories to him. When we read precipitate we normal relate to the weather, where here he relates it to “hurling down”. This book review is pointedly interested in the racism that is happening in this book, particular the Armenian Genocide. Another classic case of European dominance and cruelty over a race that is viewed as weak and subordinate. This particular review seems to hit most of the most important points for Postcolonial Criticism.
Peed seemed less concerned with trying to sell the book as we was trying to explain it. Which I found to be somewhat nice, because there are only some many ‘raving’ reviews you can read before you get sick of it. Just by reading this review I was reminded of a book I read in middle school, I can’t remember the title of the book for the life of me. The book was about a Holocaust survivor and his story about the concentration camps, but “Gendarme” is from the view point of the one who inflicts pain, the prison guard, the evil one. Of course these books deal with two different incidents but core theory is the same. Every one deserves redemption, even the ones you thought where not even capable of having a soul.
2. Editorial
Immigration Hardball
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15mon1.html?_r=2&scp=98&sq=editorial&st=nyt
This editorial on the negatives of the GOP's history regarding immigration gets its point across effectively without resorting to the usual name-calling. While the article was written to attack the GOP and does so in an extremely negative tone, it isn't so negative as to distract me from the overall message. Perhaps it's because I'm rather liberally biased, but I think this article is still pretty fair. That said, this would still be on the strong side for an AP essay - It's much too opinionated.
This author of this article comes off as someone who is rather pissed off at the Republican party's history of anti-immigration policies. However, he/she simply complains. No positive reforms were mentioned, and no alternatives to the poorly designed Republican policies were proposed. However, this article makes several good points against the Republican party's immigration policies, and all of its claims were backed up by what appears to be well-researched evidence. For example, the author cites specific years and the names of congressmen who spearheaded imposing limits on immigration. These facts make the article seem that much more credible, something it needs since it was written anonymously. Not divulging his/her identity gives the author several advantages, but hurts him/her as well. Because he/she is writing anonymously, he/she doesn't have to worry about possible reprisals or personal attacks from those who disagree with his/her opinions. For many political writers, criticism from extremists on both sides is something they have to take daily. Thus, the author of this piece can express his/her true opinion. On the other hand, many people dismiss anonymous articles or editorials as being unreliable rants from random people; nobody knows who the author is, so the article has no credibility. Personally, I tend to enjoy anonymous pieces. Although I often do not take them as seriously as pieces with known authors, it's still very interesting to see the true points of views of people when they do not fear the judgement of others.
3. Reflexive Essay
"The Hissing of Summer Lawns"
Jonathan Franzen
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_franzen#ixzz1209ZdfSq
Jonathan Franzen uses his personal experiences, written with humor, regret, and lessons learnt to explain a decision he has made, a code to live his life by. In his reflective essay for the New Yorker, "The Hissing of Summer Lawns", he tells of how he decided to live within his means.
Franzen opens with an anecdote, common in reflective essays. Franzen makes it clear that the force behind all his actions is his poor wealth, as an almost desperate writer, this plays a part in the lessons learnt from his reflection. The essay takes place in the past; opening with “In the early nineties,” however, Franzen avoids any passive tense. Through a series of stories Franzen tells of his poor experiences house-sitting. “The first house I sat belonged to a professor at my alma mater”, immediately he saw all the outweighing downside to his new occupation, realizing “it’s in the nature of a borrowed house that its closets will be hung with someone else’s bathrobes, its refrigerator glutted with someone else’s condiments, its shower drain plugged with someone else’s hair.” The point of the reflection was not, however, that it is an uncomfortable situation to live in someone else’s home. Though, this was all necessary to develop Franzen’s light-hearted tone and disappointed voice. The precedent that house sitting is bad must also be set. Only after Franzen had grown tired of living in another’s home was he told “This is my house, Jonathan.”
At the next house, “the grand stucco house of two older friends, Ken and Joan, in Media, Pennsylvania”, Franzen reasserts, almost as an excuse, that he had “less than no money at all”. Continuing with the comic tone he mocks his hosts “Ken gently chided Joan for having “bruised” with melting ice”, and states “The only thing I had to do to earn my keep in Media was mow Ken and Joan’s extensive lawn. Mowing lawns has always seemed to me among the most despair-inducing of human activities.” The most valuable thing stated by his hosts was that they always live beyond their means. Franzen takes this as advice. Implementing this advice comically, “by way of following Ken’s example of living beyond one’s means, I delayed the first mowing until the grass was so long that I had to stop and empty the clippings bag every five minutes” however perhaps seemingly comic, this turned out to be the catalyst for the change and revelation in Franzen’s life. “I delayed the second mowing even longer. By the time I got around to it, the lawn had been colonized by a large clan of earth-burrowing hornets”; the following anecdote contains the essay’s message. “Ken told me that I needed to visit the hornet homes one by one after dark, when the inhabitants were sleeping, and pour gasoline into the burrows and set them on fire.” With this advice Franzen almost burnt himself out of house and home, and he reflects “and the home wasn’t even mine”. The terrifying experience jolted Franzen. After much anticipation Franzen tells us what was learnt in punch-line-like format he concludes, “However modest my means were, it was seeming preferable, after all, to live within them.” Using short sentences, he bluntly ends with “I never house-sat again.”
No comments:
Post a Comment