Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Hamill vs. Breslin
Although written only five years apart and about similar events, the Breslin and Hamill stories we read for class feel vastly different. Identify one literary technique that, to your mind, contributes to this different feel and explain how it contributes. You might choose, for example, from point of view, narrative structure, choice of language, and so on. Please be as specific and complete as possible. Your response should be posted prior to class on Wed., Dec. 10.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
One of the major factors that makes the two pieces so different from each other is the perspective. In Breslin's piece, the voice feels almost detached. We are not given a first-person perspective, so it makes it difficult to connect with the emotions (maybe Breslin was looking to recreate that numb feeling you get when someone important dies). In Hamill's piece, however, it's told from first-person with a more emotional tone. Hamill is able to describe his fury with not only the gunman, but the rest of America as well.
Both pieces are equally powerful, but for different reasons. While reading the Hamill piece I could feel how furious he was. With Breslin's piece, on the other hand, I could identify with a simple American man feeling that it was an honor to dig JFK's grave. There's less emotion in Breslin's piece, and therefore more observations to be made.
While they're both writing about something tragic their styles are both very different. Hamill's relationship to Kennedy, being a good friend of his,makes his piece so much more focused on the writer's emotions while Breslin can look at the scene and instead observe all of the functions of the people and their line of work. This is reinforced by Hamill's use of first person and Breslin's omniscient voice. Hamill uses words that stir up a lot of visceral emotions in the reader like "sweaty stew", "hurtling bodies" and "insane fury". Breslin uses his words to stir emotions as well but he does it more so by the order in which he puts them like when he describes Jackie walking and the steadiness makes for a marching beat which adds to the solemn mood of it. Breslin and Hamill are both chronological but Breslin ends the scene fairly quickly while Hamill goes on to describe the aftermath of how he felt about the assassination and the state of America in general. Both of the writers make strong statements about people's role in democracy and life in general but do so in starkly different ways.
Both the Breslin and Hamill pieces depict intense, powerful and monumental moments in history, yet the narrative structure that differs between them gives them very different tones and feel. The Breslin piece is personal as it is told from the eyes of the grave digger and the minute details he gives set the scene so that readers feel as if they are there. However, much of it is told from a certain distance, not too close to Caroline Kennedy yet the distance from which it is told evokes strong emotion from the reader because it is almost a sense of detachment, an emotion/feeling that many people can feel when faced with such a tragic event, especially the death of a loved one.
Hamill's piece on the other hand, is told with extreme detail as well but at a fast pace that gives a sense of rushing. It captures the intensity and excitement in the room and allows the reader to feel rushed and anxious with the writer. The mass excitement and then horrified disbelief and confusion is expressed through the sentences composed almost entirely of small details and the dialogue is always hyper-expressed, with the "no, no, noooo" and explanation points. This difference in narrative structure works in both pieces to create tone that manages to make the reader feel as powerful as the situation depicted.
The stories by Breslin and Hamill are both about similar events, but they feel different because of their narrative structure. Breslin's story focuses on two people, the gravedigger and Jacqueline Kennedy. Hamill's piece on the other hand focuses on a number of different individuals including Robert Kennedy, the gunman, the people who were at the scene of the assassination and himself. Hamill tells the story of the assassination through the multiple characters he incorporates into it. Breslin seems like he is almost telling two separate stories in his piece, one about the gravedigger and one about Kennedy's wife, but he brings the two stories together at the end through his use of time as a transition.
Hamill's story flows more smoothly because it seems that he is giving a detail by detail recount of the assassination and its immediate aftermath. Hamill does not use time as a transitional element because it is not necessary in his story since everything is in a clear chronological order. Breslin needed to use the time element because of his focus on two different people who did not come into direct contact with each other.
The perspectives Breslin and Hamill use in their pieces are different. Breslin uses a third person point of view, while Hamill uses the first. Because of this, Breslin's piece reads more as a story than Hamill's which reads more as a personal account. For this reason, Hamill's piece is a lot more detailed. He points out little details of the setting that he sees with his own eyes that can't be recounted as well from somebody else's persepctive. He addresses things like the "high bluish flourescent lights" and "pale dirty walls." Such details would often be overlooked in an interview. Also, since the story is told in first person, it seems more credible. The description of Kennedy "lurched against the ice machine and then sag and then fall forward slightly" is another details that is extremely vivid. It stands out and clearly is a fact. His word choice is powerful and convincing.
Two images that can be directly compared are the descriptions of the wives approaching their dead husbands. Breslin describes the wife's walk and the fact that she holds her head high, why Hamill describes Ethel's actions and then backs them up with the crowds reaction. "We heard nothing," he states. This addition makes the story more personal and heart-wrenching.
I think the biggest difference between these stories is the perspective that the writers use. Breslin’s story is written in third person narrative and focuses on the grave digger and Jacqueline Kennedy. You read about these two people and how they reacted on the death of John F. Kennedy. How they do what they have to do. How they fulfill their role. It is an emotional story, but because of this third person perspective, it is less ‘hard’ to read then the story Hamill wrote.
His story is written in first person, and since he is a friend of Kennedy, it contains a lot of emotions. He puts himself in the story, he writes about how he feels, the anger he feels toward a lot of different people. His descriptions are very detailed. If he would have written the piece in third person, this wouldn’t have been so strong. It is almost as you are there with him. His choice of words and how he builds up a sentence, helps him with this. Because of how he writes, you feel the action during the assassination. You can feel the anger in his body. You can feel how he feels. I feel that the Hamill story is more about what this assassin means to Hamill, and with him a lot of other people. And in one way, this is what Breslin’s story is about too. The reaction of different people on the death of two Kennedy’s.
Although the Hamill and Breslin stories are about similar events, the way each story is structured is completely different. Breslin's story takes place after JFK has already been assassinated and focuses on the man digging his grave. Breslin's tone throughout the piece shows the shock and depression throughout the country while also showing that the world continues to turn despite how tragic individual events may be.
Hamill's piece, on the other hand, begins moments before Robert Kennedy is shot and moves very quickly. Hamill's writing comes across with a sense of urgency, much like Hunter S. Thompson's writing. Hamill's piece also comes across as more personal because Hamill was a personal friend of Kennedy's, while Breslin's piece is more about the effect on the country rather than one person.
I see Hamill and Breslins stories as examples of how you can take one specific topic and write or report on it tow totally different ways.
In fact, the only similarity that I can clearly see after first read is the chronological order of the stories being told. Breslins story is focused around the wife of the deceased and the grave digger, and Hamill's is focused on the assassination of Robert and many characters/people that where involved.((gunman, doctors, etc) Both stories have a perspective of a very sad event that took place in our American history, but for the most part, Hamills story hits home for me the most because it dealt directly with the assassination of a Kennedy. the voice used in the telling of this story isn't first person as it is in Breslins, but it still comes across in an extremely powerful way.
Overall the one thing myself and others who are reading both stories should be able to agree upon is that both stories are equally strong, and powerful, but their reasons for being so are very different.
Both stories focus on tragic events in American history but are told two different ways. Breslin’s story has a lot more suspense and emotion involved. The author’s decision to write in first person allows him to incorporate his thoughts, his confusion and frustration during the assassination. He mentions so many of the people that were present and their reactions before and after the assassination. The fact that he introduces the assassinator also adds a different element. The way he describes his stance, his gun, and the immediate reactions adds more feeling to the story. I think Emmi brought up a good point when she said this story was about what the assassination meant to Hamill and others.
Breslin’s story had less suspense but more gloom. He focuses more on the grave digger and Jacqueline Kennedy but not on their emotions. With this he is able to demonstrate that life must and will go on after this tragic event. I thought it was interesting that Hamill also has some of that in his story towards the end. He talks about how America is falling apart (by giving various examples) and although his death upset so many people it really wasn’t going to change anything. He is a lot more pessimistic but I think the idea is the same just that Breslin does it by focusing on two characters instead of historical events. After reading this story I felt more upset with the state of America, the assassinator, it left me wanting change. Breslin’s left me feeling sad but more accepting of the death.
Writing a story in the first person gives the author the freedom to say whatever the shit he/she wants. It is okay to make fun of a small pimply kid and the disgrace of Americans, as long as you write so as coming from you (author). That is the main difference between Hamill and Breslin. In Hamill's story, we literally follow him. We are constantly being reminded where he is in the story, from the location of his body to his state of mind. "I was at the rear of the stand, next to George Plimpton." "I was in front of him, walking backwards." The fact that we are being placed inside Hamill's body in order to see the story from where he is standing, makes following his mind and his opinion on what happened, inevidible. We relate to his anger, because we see what he saw. We become his eyes.
Breslin took a very different approach by leaving himself out of the story. I consider "It's an Honor"to be more of a traditional journalism story (except a shit-ton better) because of his use of reporting. Although we get a sense of Breslin's feelings on said issue, we get and understand such through the voices of others. It is clear, and remarkable, the extent of reporting Breslin did for this story. There is a sincere, calm, and sad feeling in Breslin's story, where Hamil's contains the emotions of anger and bitterness.
Breslin and Hammill are trying to show different things with each of their pieces. Breslin is showing the reverence, respect and honor that accompanies tragedy. Hammill is showing the anger that comes with sudden tragedy.
Both pieces have feature very inspired writing and in the end I think that they are trying to illustrate human reaction and how great tragedies can affect us all so powerfully.
Breslin and Hamill's stories are both intensely narrated, but with Breslin, he tells the story from the eyes of the grave digger, not his own and the grave digger is not close in distance to Kennedy. Also in Breslin's story, he is gives great imagery for the funeral setting. He describes her walking throughout the piece and how she stands with her head up high. I feel like Hamill's piece was very personal, not only because it was told from his own eyes, but the words he uses to depict sadness and strength throughout. It is easy to connect with the true emotions of the writer when they are actually telling it through themself, in first-person. Also, Hamill goes in to tell about his anger towards the murderer of Kennedy, not necessary with American citizens. Hamill also uses a lot of different characters throughout his story to try to show the reader the different views throughout the assassination.
I believe the biggest difference between “Hamill’s Two Minutes to Midnight: The Very Last Hurrah” and Breslin’s “It’s an Honor” is the perspective of each of the narrators. Breslin approaches the subject from a very distant angle. Firstly, he speaks from the 3rd person and we never really see an opinion or his voice coming out in his writing. Hamill approaches it to an extreme opposite. As soon as the assassination is committed we see Hamill interjecting himself into the scene and we hear his own voice coming through. His 1st person perspective lets him speak his mind and give his opinion about the country while reporting the events of the evening. To Hamill it was a very personal offense because he witnessed it, because he was friends with Kennedy and the reader picks that up in his writing. With Breslin’s writing it just seems like an every day event; the world continues to go on and everyone does their everyday duties and that stands out in his narration. The two stories are about similar events but couldn’t be anymore different from one another.
I think the most significant difference, like a majority of the other students have said, is the narrative. Breslin and Hamill write what they observe, but Hamill shares more personally what he thinks of the situation. For example, he said Robert Kennedy's death was "just another digit in the great historical pageant that includes the slaughter of Indians, the plundering of Mexico..." He's saying that Kennedy's death may affect people, but life will continue with inhumanity and cruelty, or at least something along those lines. Breslin does this too, but he doesn't share his thoughts. He shows it through the the gravediggers, who just dig another hole for a coffin, though its JKF. They'' continue living their lives. Both pieces share details and convey human emotion, but Hamill is more forward.
The only thing keeping the Breslin and Hamill stories on the same boat is the focus on assassinations, with Breslin writing about the assassinated John F. Kennedy's funeral and Hamill recalling the nightmarish assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Besides that, these two stories are extremely different from one another. The Breslin piece is much more regular-news in it's styling, with a simplistic, yet still very powerful narration of the burial and how two different classes (Pollard and Jackie Kennedy) can come together. It's the kind of story that you can read on the train going home from work. Hamill's account of the assassination of Robert Kennedy is not as straight-forward; it's a vivid, raw, and frightening description of the events that unfolded in that hotel kitchen, with profanity and colorful descriptions ("pimply face messenger from evil...") in abundance. It's a story meant for private reading, for the train ride home reading might be much more stressful and, dare I say it, scary. Not the kind of stuff to have before hitting the dinner table with the wife and kid. In all, tone is the big factor in dividing these two stories. However, it all makes sense; the account of an assassination NEEDS that extra push over the cliff, whereas a funeral story can't really be filled with fireworks and profanity.
I think that a striking difference between the two pieces if the choice and use of language. In the Breslin piece, the language seems simple and bare, with little embellishments and a pace which reflects the somber, subdued mood of both the characters and the nation. It's very matter-of-fact,reflective, and the language is to the point. Sentences describe the gravedigger simply, such as "Pollard is forty-two. He is a slim man with a mustache and was born in Pittsburgh..." The language, although simple is describing Pollard, is used in this way to give a wider panoramic view of the people of America. Because of the tragedy, everyone is affected and in a way comes together for strength, and through his language, we get the simple story of another American faced with with event.
On the other hand, Hamill's piece uses rich language to describe the jubilant tone of the convention, and quick, erratic language after the shot to describe the mayhem. Time is normal, and even seems to slow down before the shot, and speeds up afterwords. Flourishes in his language such as "The crowd was smeared against the bandstand, a smear of black faces and Mexican-American faces and bearded faces and Beverly Hills faces crowned with purple hair." give insight into the type of people Robert Kennedy invoked hope from. His description of a "rusty ice machine" further this language, giving a hyper-realistic view of a the scene before the assassination. After it, sentences read more like lists. "The Jack Ruby in me was rising up, white, bright, with a high singing sound in the ears, and I wanted to damage that insane little bastard they were holding." His language turns to his own feelings and emotions, giving the reader a vivid first hand account of the anger and disparity of not only that moment, but the whole generations loss of a dream. His describes, "Just one punch. Just one for Dallas. Just one for Medgar Evers,just one for Martin Luther King. Just one punch. One." This language shows that he's not only sick of the assassin there, but of the entire country and everyone who kept killing the hopes and dreams of a generation because of racism, bigotry and ignorance. "The scummy concrete floor..." is where Kennedy lays, and this descriptive language shows his feelings and sadness of the whole ordeal.
I think the main differences between Hammill and Breslin is their perspective and choice of language. As it was discussed in class, Breslin's piece was almost at a walking pace in the language that he uses. It's sad and reverent, talking about people trudging along with their lives and jobs after a tragic death. He uses the perspective of a detached person, narrating what happens to the gravedigger and Jackie Kennedy. Also, it doesn't discuss the event itself, just the aftermath.
Hammill's piece is much more hurried and frantic in language. It's almost loud in a way. It moves fast because, to him, the event happened quickly. He gives a first person's perspective of the actual assassination as opposed to what happened to people after it. He explained how he felt, how he reacted. Instead of a weary depression and obligation that Breslin's piece evokes, Hammil gives off anger and aggression.
I think one of the main differences between the Hamill and Breslin pieces is the way in which the voice of the narrator gives a whole overtone to the pieces that makes them very different from each other. Breslin used simple, clear, slow paced words to create the feeling of being at a funeral, while Hamill recreated the actual shooting of Kennedy through his language of quick paced short sentences. In this way, Breslin was able to keep a somber overtone over the whole piece while Hamill kept an angery, anxious overtone. Both writers chose to use language to convey the feelings and the atmosphere of the places they were in, Breslin in a graveyard, Hamill in the midst of Kennedy's assassination, and chose words that would effectively capture that mood.
The main way in which Hamill and Breslin's piece differ is that Hamill's piece is much more emotional. The chaotic cries of "No. No. Noooo!" and "Kill him, kill him now, kill him, kill him!" enforce the urgency, anger and sadness of the event. The event pulls the reader in so many different directions, from person to person to trying to make sense of Kennedy's death. Hamill's detailed account of the event and emotions felt that day make the piece that much more relatable. Breslin's piece is rather stoic, and while it was powerful, I could relate more with Breslin's piece because I almost could feel how angry and hurt Kennedy's followers felt. The use of dialogue and details are extremely effective in this piece.
I agree with the others that Hamill’s piece was much more intimate. His first-person narrative of the event places the reader there, as it’s happening. It’s fast, suspenseful and almost aggressive. Breslin’s piece on the other hand is slower, more detached, and more subtle.
I think the biggest reason for these differences is simply chronology. Breslin’s piece focused on J.F.K’s assassination. His piece suggests that there was still hope for the country. His comment that Jackie Kennedy “had this terrible strength that everybody needed so badly,” reveals that people knew they could overcome this tragedy.
Because Hamill’s piece focused on R.F.K. assassination, he is able to make references to J.F.K, Malcolm X, and M.L.K. These references contribute immensely to the tone of the piece. They reveal a loss, of hope, disgust: the “secret filthy heart of America” had “struck again.” Set in the context of our tragic American history, Hamill’s piece comes to represent something more: the disintegration of American faith and brotherly love before his very eyes.
Breslin and Hamill's stories were each very different, giving the reader a different feeling on what happened regarding the death of the President. Each story was equally important and gave the reader different insight on what America was feeling through different points in time. The main literary technique that distinguihed the different feelings were choice of language.
Because Hamill was immediately a member that witnessed what occured, he gave the reader a rushed, panicked sense that made the reader read faster and faster, almost skimming his words he displayed. He used a lot of discription and dialogue that gave the reader a sense that they were there with him, watching the shooting and feeling the pain and anger that he did. Even the dialogue he used didn't alway have attribution to anyone, making the reader a bit confused, giving a sense of chaos and mahem.
On the other hand, Breslin kept his language simple, not using too much description to show a sort of "mourning" sense that made the reader sympathize with the death. He kept the peice short with quick sentences one after the other. It makes the reader pay more attention to each word, more attention to each person, and more attention to each feeling. The easy language he used and simple structure, different from the chaos in Hamill's peice, showed how it was a time to walk on eggshells, for the President's wife keep one's composure and not show too much emotion as to stay strong for America.
sorry i commented so late! my.newpaltz.edu was down all night and that's where I access this blog through..
Post a Comment