Talk of the Town

There are plenty of articles out there that show the good in the world. Stories of massive fundraisers and  successful organ transplants and other lovely things fill up the pages in the newspaper and on the internet.

"Talk of the Town" is not one of those heart-warming articles that instils good feelings nor joy. Both paint pictures of a harsh reality that we know as 9/11. The first piece by John Updike focuses more the actual event and the initial shock that came with it.

The author saw this tragedy from afar, but in person, while it was happening. Updike's article describes the scene in great detail, often using words that one would normally use to project beauty. For me, that was one of the confusing parts. He wrote, "... the sulfurous cloud streaming south toward the ocean, was pure blue, rendered uncannily pristine by the absence of jet trails" when describing the scene, and that would normally give off a connotation that it was somehow beautiful. Perhaps the picture was hauntingly beautiful, as up until the first plane crash, the day was perfect. The sky was blue and the sun was shining on a nice fall day. Things were beautiful and then suddenly they weren't. The very last line in the piece contributes to this idea of haunting beauty. It says, "... the ruins were still sending out smoke, but New York looked glorious." This tragic beauty seems to be a theme, even. 

The line, "We knew we had just witnessed thousands of deaths" is very simply put, but also very haunting and real. I would barely be able to handle witnessing even one persons death, and I can't even imagine what it must have been like to witness thousands all at once. One can look at pictures or Youtube videos of the event and still feel many different emotions, but I highly doubt it can compare to seeing it live. 

This article also speaks of the aftermath. One nightmare would be cleaning up the whole scene, with of the bodies and all. People trying to find their loved ones and hoping and praying that they somehow made it out alive. The most real one, to me anyway, is how the sound of an airplane put people on edge for a while after the incident. With the aftermath, it also brings the question of "What could we have done to prevent this?"

The second article, by Susan Sontag, focuses more on how we as a nation handled the situation. It starts out by discussing the faults of the media and how they tend to spin things. That much is true; it can be very difficult to decipher what is fact and what is fiction when watching the news sometimes. 

It also talks of how our leaders are saying that this country was still strong even after this attack. Sontag basically said that was rubbish, and our leaders are cowardly for saying such a thing. Even if America was at a low point during this attack, there is no way our leaders could have outright said we were weak. If Sontag is getting mad at Bush for saying that our country is strong, imagine how many people would have hated him if he would have said something along the lines of "We were attacked, and America, quite frankly, is very weak right now". Americans pride themselves on being strong and able to overcome anything. Telling the "truth" about it wouldn't have gone over well, so I don't really understand why Sontag is criticizing because of that. 

The first article's tone was more mild and mellancholy. It simply described the event in detail, but didn't offer opinions on anything. The second, on the other hand, had an angry and sarcastic tone. It had a strong opinion about how 9/11 was handled.