Updike's article contained a lot of vivid details because he actually witnessed the event. I've only talked to one person who was in New York when the attack took place. My aunt lives in Brooklyn, but she works in Manhattan. She said that when the World Trade Center was hit, everyone was trying to get away from it. She tried to go across the Brooklyn Bridge to get back home, and there were a ton of people on it. She said that the people on the bridge were afraid it would be bombed because there were so many people there in one place. I think that Updike's gripping descriptions could really get the reader on his side. Towards the end of his article, Updike talked about how the tragedy could make America more patriotic. If the reader could understand the tragedy from the imagery, that would make it easier for Updike to create a patriotic feeling in the reader.
Sontag criticized America more than she criticized the actual terrorist attack. Updike portrayed America as innocent with the way he mentions a child watching the planes crash from a window. Sontag seems to think that America did some things to deserve that attack. She mentions that it could have been "a consequence of specific American alliances and actions." Sontag also disagrees with the way American leaders and media handled the terrorist attack. She seems to have lost faith in her nation, whereas Updike is made more patriotic and thinks that America is "a country worth fighting for."
Sontag's ideas are so extreme that they're hard for me to agree with. Also, it's weird to hear the terrorists considered to be anything but terrible. She says that they weren't cowards, and that's really the only time I've ever heard that. She mentioned how courage was a morally neutral virtue, so killing wouldn't necessarily make someone cowardly. Courageous or not, the terrorists still did an awful thing, and I think Sontag went a bit overboard with her accusations of America.
Sontag's ideas are so extreme that they're hard for me to agree with. Also, it's weird to hear the terrorists considered to be anything but terrible. She says that they weren't cowards, and that's really the only time I've ever heard that. She mentioned how courage was a morally neutral virtue, so killing wouldn't necessarily make someone cowardly. Courageous or not, the terrorists still did an awful thing, and I think Sontag went a bit overboard with her accusations of America.
I also have a relative, my Uncle, who saw it happen. He was actually working across the street when the attack happened. I haven't seen him in years so I have not heard his story about that day, but I know I would love to. Besides that I partially agree with what you say here. I think that she does seem to be a little to supporting of the terrorists in bolstering their bravery, but I think that her overall point is that some of the things that we were (and still are) doing are in some instances just as bad as this attack, for instance, the Iraq bombings. I like that Updike's brought hope that we could overcome this event, but Sontag's was also important because it treated this event as a slap in the face to remind us that even though we are a strong country, we are not invincible.
ReplyDelete