Thursday, March 25, 2010
Hamill & 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 Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
In terms of contrast between the pieces by Breslin and Hamill (there are, of course, several obvious similarities as well, most notably the subject matter), I think the most stark difference is in the perspective of the two authors.
With Breslin, we see the aftermath of the JFK assassination through a third-person perspective, and while his piece is hardly devoid of emotion, we never really come to know what the author himself is thinking. Breslin primarily focuses upon two figures - Jackie Kennedy and the gravedigger (with a nod to LBJ, as well) - and his story moves in a rather somber, timely fashion. Indeed, while time has practically stood still in the U.S. during this time, Breslin uses time as a sort of transition to eventually bring the unrelated Jackie/gravedigger elements together.
Hamill's story is, in a bunch of respects, a far different creature. The most obvious departure from Breslin's piece is the use of first-person, and not only is it just first-person, but it's first-person through the eyes of someone who had a deep, personal connection to the subject at hand. Thus, when tragedy strikes, it's probably no surprise that Hamill has quite a lot to say. His story is just as emotional as Breslin's, but on a different level. He doesn't focus upon just one or two figures, but attempts to give a sweeping picture of the entire chaotic scene at hand, giving it his all to describe the sadness and horror engulfing the crowd at hand. Given what is happening before Hamill's eyes is moving at a rapid pace, his reporting in turn plays out in a more hurried fashion than Breslin's. Where Breslin's reporting is rather mournful and sobering, Hamill's is of a more frantic, overwhelming nature.
The literary technique that displays the difference between the two pieces the most is language choice. In the Hamill piece, word choice completes two tasks. It expresses how Hamill feels witnessing, not only the murder of Robert Kennedy, but the murder of a friend, and it dictates the pace of the piece. Hamill uses repetition of certain words throughout the piece when he wants to keep it fast paced. In the beginning, when Hamill describes the crowd he uses “and” when he lists the diverse people listening to Kennedy. Then when Kennedy is speaking Hamill uses “and” again to list all the people Kennedy thanks. This “listing” type of word choice speeds the narrative along. During the scene where Kennedy is shot, there is no repetition. It is almost as if Hamill wants readers to pay close attention to this part so he literally slows down. Hamill describes how he wants to punch the murderer. “Just one punch. Just one for Dallas. Just one for Medger Evers, just one for Martin Luther King. Just one punch. Just one. One.” Hamill uses repetition of the word “sick” when he focuses on the teenage girl outside who has just found out Kennedy has been shot. “Sick, one girl kept saying. Sick. Sick. What kind of country is this? Sick. Sick.” After that the words “dead” and “died” overwhelm the paragraph about “the unspoken thought”—all the heroes who have been murdered and what this says about the country. In Hamill’s words “the country’s gone.”
Hamill’s word choice throughout the piece expresses his feelings. He refers to the place where Kennedy was shot as a “grubby hole” and a “squalid cellar” with a “scummy floor.” The perpetrator is a “pimply messenger” and an “insane little bastard” from the “filthy heart of America.” He also refers to the members of the National Rifle Association as “cowardly bums.” This piece is chock full of Hamill’s feelings and anger about the death of his friend and the part each of these people played in it. The place Kennedy was murdered was a “shabby reality behind the glittering façade”. The “shabby reality” is the fall of America.
Breslin, in contrast, bases his language purely off accurate and extremely precise description. His opinions definitely come through as well, but in a much more subtle manner. His favorite words to use are “which,” “now,” “that,” and “who.” Breslin describes the sailors at the burial “who held up flags of the state of the country,” and Arlington National Cemetery, “which is where Pollard works for a living”, and Jackie as “now know[ing] that it is forever” and Kennedy’s coffin, “that was strapped with two black leather belts to a black caisson.” These subtle details capture a great emotion that underlies Breslin’s account. It is a message to the American people that at a time like this all anyone can do is their job. Johnson will be president, and Pollard will dig graves and society will have to just move on, at a time when many didn’t think it was possible.
i'm very impressed with the incisiveness and thoroughness of the two comments thus far.
Both authors structure their stories to go back and forth, intertwining different subjects. For Breslin, he describes the background of a simple gravedigger named Clifton Pollard without revealing the purpose or name of dead ‘til the very end. He then puts the reader in an emotional consciousness when describing Jackie Kennedy, the now widowed First Lady leaving the White House to bury her husband while 'holding' the strength of America together, heavily influencing the reader that America was now a worried country with an uncertain future. You can sense that from Breslin's writing. "Even though they had killed her husband and his blood ran onto her lap while he died, she could walk through the streets and to his grave and help us all while she walked."
With Hamill's piece, he first describes the crowd of supporters and those in attendance. After the assassination scene, he brings the reader back to those who were apart of the Bobby crowd, the political friends, rival Sam Yorty and his meaningless commentary, and especially the "young girls with plastic Kennedy boaters" and the "smear of black faces and Mexican-American faces" who seemed excited or eager for change through the role of Bobby Kennedy. He blames more than just the "pimpled messenger" being restrained and the NRA that killed a dream. He is disgusted by everything he sees, hears, and thinks, including a cabby who won't take a wounded member into the car because he angrily guesses that the blood will ruin his plastic upholstery.
"Nothing would change. Kennedy's death would mean nothing....Just another digit."
As a friend, Hamill's perspective and eye-witness account means more to the reader. He is beyond pissed. His chosen words give justice to his personal pain and frustration at the collapse of premature change. Hamill helps the reader relate to his own pain by juxtaposing his father's emigration from Ireland to America by connecting a flashback about Bobby at a Saint Patrick's Day dinner. Kennedy was an Irish Catholic and many people emigrated from Europe for a so-called better life in America.
Breslin wasn't JFK's friend, though mentioned in the class discussion, he definitely struck a common chord when he writes an ode to all widows "This must be the worst time of all, when a woman sees the coffin with her husband inside and it is in place to be buried under the earth."
Both of their language identifies relative pain, frustration and comfort. How sudden change can vastly change the life of another. Breslin uses Clifton Pollard as a source of comfort, "It's an honor", reminding the reader he's the last to work for Kennedy. Hamill downs some rum until he forgets what he saw and he can't cry anymore tears for America. As a reader, I'm glad he put that. Someone like me can't even fathom that kind of constant setback where Americans are killing other Americans and the hope that comes with it.
Both Breslin and Hamill present emotional views on the assassination of the Kennedy’s. However, the word choices make the stories starkly different.
In Breslins story, we see the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s deaths through the eyes of a gravedigger. I think that it was really clever of Breslin to approach it from Clifton Pollard point of view. Though he may not seem like an integral part of the story, he is directly immersed in the scenario and could also relate to the readers. I think when Breslin repeats that Pollard works for $3.01, it gives the reader a relatable character. Someone who is just like them, who was just as upset about losing someone they have never even met. We discussed how the repetition of the words “she walks” is used in class but Breslin really makes you feel Jackie Kennedy’s movement. I think Breslin approaches all the different characters in his story as actual people. Clifton Pollard is a real man who works minimum wage. Jackie Kennedy, the first lady, is presented as a mother and a widow, not as a political figure. By doing this, Breslin humanizes every character.
In Hamill’s story, he gives us a first person account of the story. He starts the story and uses parenthesis in the beginning, highlighting seemingly minor details of the conference. However, all the words in parentheses are positive such as “cheer” or “laughter.” I think that this is used to start the story lightly and to convey the happiness that was present in the beginning of the day. The closer to the assassination, the more negative words are used such as “grubby”, “dirty” and “pimply.” After the shooting, Hamill almost automatically shoots into a rampage, expressing his opinions quite loudly and openly. I think that this story is much more emotional than the Breslin’s story just because Hamill inserts his own emotions into the story. When he writes about Americans doing what they do best, killing and dying, he is putting his own emotions into the mind of everyone else present. He does this again when he talks about the Kennedy girls. He says that they were wailing knowing that youth was over. Though it seems presumptious, it is fitting with Hamill’s blunt writing style. Hamill also uses a lot of dialogue in the middle of story but slows it down toward the end. It keeps the story faced paced during the time of mass commotion. The story intertwines with the writing, using dialogue to get the reader anxious during the chaos and slowing down during the reflection.
Though Hamill and Breslin both covered similar events--assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, both pieces were incredibly different.
It was already pointed out in a former post that Breslin's piece is in third person, and Hamill's is in first. Breslin's story was more about how other people were reacting to JFK's death, not his own opinion of it. It's a lot more understandable how Hamill reacted to seeing Robert Kennedy's murder occur right in front of him. He uses a lot of sardonic and obvious language that makes his opinion of America, the locations he was in, and the actions in and of themselves easily known. Whenever he was angry, writing about how America had "struck again" and how Americans were doing what they do best, I was left with anger myself. Hamill also used a lot of explicit details, details that would seem useless at first, but the help to tie the story together. He tells a lot about the locations and what's going on inside.
Breslin uses simple words and simple phrasing, but it also invokes a lot of emotions. He talked about Jackie Kennedy and how she must feel, he talked about the gravedigger and for both, you get a sense of empathy. Not that it was in Hamill's piece, but as I said before, you don't really know what Jimmy Breslin was thinking the whole time; he was just implying what the other people felt as though he were in their own minds.
it seems to me what America represents or means changes in the five years from Beslin's to Hamill's piece. it also seems to me that responsibility for the assassination and the role of the average American shift as well. you can elaborate on this in your comments of you wish.
Within the five year period these stories were written, the two New York columnists both reported the assassination of the Kennedy’s. Hamill, a writer later in his time, was very aware of Breslin, the dean of the New York columnists in his days, and might have taken Breslin's piece into account while writing his own. However, these two pieces of literary journalism were written from very different perspectives and each piece left their readers with different sentiments of the tragedy. The use of repetition by the two authors expresses their views on this calamity in American history.
Within the Breslin piece, the reader gets an emotional look into the funeral of JFK though a third person perspective. In the story, we follow Kennedy’s wife and the grave digger through their experience of that day. Through Breslin’s choice of simple language, he uses the repetition of certain words to exemplify the sorrow of that day. First, Breslin repeats the word “she” when he is discussing each thing that Kennedy’s wife did during the funeral. The way this word was used gave the reader the feeling that these tasks were all of the things that she had to do. The wording represented the simple rituals of a funeral, but underneath, the reader could see her true pain. “This must be the worst time of all, when a woman sees the coffin with her husband inside and it is in place to be buried under the earth. Now she knows that it is forever. Now there is nothing.” The repetition of the word now in this sentence shows the permanence of her loss. Even though you can feel the passion in Breslin’s writing, you never get to know what he himself thinks of the situation. But Breslin uses the grave digger to express to the reader that Americans still had pride for their country during this time, and were honored to take care of those who ran it, especially after their passing.
Unlike Breslin’s piece, Hamill’s writing was riddled with his vicious opinions of the assassination of his friend, Robert F. Kennedy, and his beliefs about the values of American culture. Hamill used brutal and straight forward language in this piece. He felt as if all the different types of people in society hard turned on each other. There was no longer unity; instead people were out to get one another. Through his word choice, the reader can see that Hamill has lost all faith in America. “Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying, and cursing because hope doesn’t last long among us.” Hamill’s use of repetition in his piece also helped to expose his theme. “Sick. Sick. What kind of country is this? Sick. Sick.” His feeling of disgust for his country permeated his wording and left me with a feeling of disappointment about what had become of our people.
A literary technique that shows a difference between the Breslin and Hamill stories is the use of a back-story. Although both stories are about similar events, they are very different in terms of their structure.
The Breslin story may have been about the Kennedy assassination, but it didn't actually speak about him being assassinated or even about the affect he had on the country. It was more about the aftermath. The main characters were the grave digger and Kennedy's wife, Jackie. There was no description on the type of person Kennedy was and his assassination was only mentioned once when Breslin said, "Even though they had killed her husband and his blood ran onto her lap when he died..." This story was more about the affect it had on people. Breslin used the story of the gravedigger and Jackie to show the different ways that Kennedy's death affected two people on opposite ends of the spectrum. One who had no affiliation to Kennedy, the other his wife.
This was very different compared to the Hamill story because this was about the actual assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Hamill took you to the last scene in his life and described how people loved him. "Young girls with plastic Kennedy boaters chanted like some lost reedy chorus from an old Ray Charles record. The crowd was squashed against the bandstand, a smear of black faces and Mexican-American faces and bearded faces and Beverly Hills faces crowned with purple hair." The story continues with the assassination of Kennedy. Hamill describes the events that take place before and after, which is very different from Breslin who tells the story of two different people.
meg makes a superb point!
These two stories and their contrasts represent so many differences and changes within America between November 1963, and June, 168.
Breslin’s story, covering the
death of JFK, is handled in a very compassionate, respectful… even poetic manner employing multiple literary techniques. This piece was much softer, and handles the topic of the assassination in a much more literary way. This could be, because it was the first sort of loss of innocence for the country. This shooting was the first, and probably most shocking assassination in a chain of murders of infamous and influential figures of the time. There’s still an air of strength and hope that’s emanating through the somber tone of the piece. The way that Jackie Kennedy is portrayed, and the honor the event is regarded with, creates a hopeful feel.
By the time Hamill writes his piece in June of 1968, a chronological time line of deaths have unfolded in the passing five years. All of which are deaths of figures of hope, and figures of change. The devastation and desperation are felt throughout Hamil’s story both in the point of view, and the raw, gritty descriptions and choice of language. By this time, JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and now… what was seen as a last hope for many, Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated. The complete loss of hope and exhausted feeling of not only the author, but the country is felt in this piece.
oops.. That first paragraph is supposed to say 1968!
In Hamill's story America is shown as an aggressive and unjust place. This is definitely shown with his word choice and even in other people's comments in the story. For example when the girl was saying "sick. sick. what kind of country is this? sick sick." He subtly adds his opinion to the story by adding her thoughts and other details of what is happening. No one was willing to help out of pure kindness either even the cab driver didn't want to offer his services because he was afraid to get blood on his car. So he paints an America that is selfish, hostile, and relentless.
Whereas Breslin's America is shown as people that respect the Government and serve patriotically. Kennedy was respected in his life and his death. This story shows a great loss that was not easily accepted unlike how Hamill describes Robert Kennedy's death. America in Breslin's story is as a whole grieving and destroyed from this event and they want to honor their fallen president in the best way they can.
Another aspect is that Jackie is described as being strong and composed at her husband's funeral but on the other hand, Ethel seemed almost lost and helpless as she attempted to help Robert Kennedy after he was shot.
1
The main difference I noticed in the Breslin and Hamill pieces, besides the length obviously, is the way each writer approaches and builds up the scene at hand.
Breslin chooses to tell the story in the third person point of view, but through the eyes of Clifton Pollard. Like we discussed in class, this emphasizes how the death of JFK affected the public and everyone throughout the country. That's what Pollard serves as in the piece, a symbol of the American public and the pain it felt after the assassination.
In the Hamill piece, the story is told from the first person point of view. This allows more emotional attachment to be placed on the situation, and that is where the two pieces differ. In my opinion, Hamill's piece has more of a specific emotional attachment to the situation.
It is interesting how two similar topics can be covered in different ways. One is about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the other covers the assassination of Robert Kennedy. The point of view for both stories is different and offers different insight to similar tragic events. Breslin's piece is written in the third person after the killing of JFK had already taken place. Instead of taking the normal view of the crowd, he went and found the grave digger that would be digging JFK's grave. This is a unique approach and is one that allows the reader to see the event from a different view point, one they may have not considered. They realize what a tragedy it really was because of how it effected even the smallest working class person, who had not even known the president. He kept repeating "It's an honor," in response to having to dig the grave. It shows who this person that was killed really was to a country. The man acts as if he is serving the deceased president by digging his grave.
Hamill's piece is a scene taken right from the actual assassination of Robert Kennedy. He descriptions are what really portray his first person point of view. He describes the stance that the shooter took, even down to the pimples on his face. "Then a pimply messenger arrived from the secret filthy heart of America." This shows that Hamill could see the intent the shooter had and the anger he must of felt towards him just by how he looked when he went to take the shot, almost as if he knew why he was shooting him. While this piece is not taken from quite as a unique standpoint as Breslin's, it come right from the heart of the incident, so you can get descriptions like "The scene assumed a kind of insane fury, all jump cuts, screams, noise, hurtling bodies, blood. The shots went pap-pap pap-pap-pap, small sharp noises like a distant firefight or the or the sound of firecrackers in a backyard." Hamill can put the reader into the situation mentally because he was there.
Both stories tell express what the assassinations were to society well, but in different ways. One gives a first hand account of the actual scene while the other dives right into the depths of society to turn up some deeper meaning and new perspective.
It is interesting how two similar topics can be covered in different ways. One is about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the other covers the assassination of Robert Kennedy. The point of view for both stories is different and offers different insight to similar tragic events. Breslin's piece is written in the third person after the killing of JFK had already taken place. Instead of taking the normal view of the crowd, he went and found the grave digger that would be digging JFK's grave. This is a unique approach and is one that allows the reader to see the event from a different view point, one they may have not considered. They realize what a tragedy it really was because of how it effected even the smallest working class person, who had not even known the president. He kept repeating "It's an honor," in response to having to dig the grave. It shows who this person that was killed really was to a country. The man acts as if he is serving the deceased president by digging his grave.
Hamill's piece is a scene taken right from the actual assassination of Robert Kennedy. He descriptions are what really portray his first person point of view. He describes the stance that the shooter took, even down to the pimples on his face. "Then a pimply messenger arrived from the secret filthy heart of America." This shows that Hamill could see the intent the shooter had and the anger he must of felt towards him just by how he looked when he went to take the shot, almost as if he knew why he was shooting him. While this piece is not taken from quite as a unique standpoint as Breslin's, it come right from the heart of the incident, so you can get descriptions like "The scene assumed a kind of insane fury, all jump cuts, screams, noise, hurtling bodies, blood. The shots went pap-pap pap-pap-pap, small sharp noises like a distant firefight or the or the sound of firecrackers in a backyard." Hamill can put the reader into the situation mentally because he was there.
Both stories tell express what the assassinations were to society well, but in different ways. One gives a first hand account of the actual scene while the other dives right into the depths of society to turn up some deeper meaning and new perspective.
Through examining the structural differences and stylistic writing choices made by Breslin and Hamill in their pieces focused on the assassination of a particular member of the Kennedy family, readers come to understand how each man lived and reported in a different America. Good journalism – really, just good writing – should serve as an historical record, and the particular voice of each writer stands as a strong reflection of the shift in societal values.
Suzann aptly pointed out how Hamill brilliantly set the pace through his story by varying the ways in which he connected clauses, using that “listing” sort of syntax that is heavy on conjunctions to build tension. Readers can’t help but go through descriptive clause after descriptive clause, detail after detail, to finally find the action Hamill was building up to. Then, when major events do happen – the murder itself – the syntax is suddenly shortened. We have seen this technique used in the first story we read for this class and many times afterwards. In contrast, Breslin’s piece is written in almost painfully basic language; there are no comparisons of people to things like “sweaty stews” as there were in Hamill’s work. I don’t think it should be ignored that Breslin’s America, like his writing style, was simpler. This was a nation emerging from the Eisenhower post-war era, excited for their young and handsome president with a fashionable wife like Jackie O. JFK and Breslin’s America was more innocent, fresh off of an era focused on the nuclear family and a war without fighting. Like Breslin’s work, things were straight forward. Glorification of an American icon or hero was also essential to post050’s America, and Breslin’s story certainly does that in the description of Jacqueline Kennedy holding her head high at her husband’s funeral procession. RFK’s time, as Sam suggested, was rife with deaths that came at what seemed like the brink of change. Civil rights leaders and progressive politicians like the Kennedys were being murdered right when it seemed as though they were reaching a peak or coming closer to achieving their goals. The political climate was as tense as Hamill’s story, maintaining a nervous sense of anticipation. In my opinion, Hamill captured this brilliantly in his story of the murder of one of several key players who was murdered.
However, as much as these stories differ syntactically and in terms of the point of view and word choices each writer made, they have one key thing in common: excruciating incorporation of detail. Breslin told us what time the gravedigger got up and what he ate for breakfast. Hamill described the setting of RFK’s assassination down to how many serving carts were being manned by Mexican-American bus boys. Though each writer sets up their story differently, the incorporation of sensory details makes readers, in a way, feel what it going on around the observer in the story.
The difference in these two pieces is the dwindling down of faith in America, the American dream/culture and everything it means to be an american. Hamill demonstrates his take on the downfall of Americanism in his approach. While Breslin is more somber and respectful, wholesome and quiet; Hamill jumps right into the scene, blood and gore, bullets flying and chairs swinging. Hamill uses language to enhance his take on another Kennedy assassination, another reason to lose faith in America, "America the Beautiful: with crumby little mini-John Waynes carrying guns to the woods like surrogate penises." Hamill exemplifies the idea of America through the individual, how he or she is effected and feels about the situation and how they feel empowered to be a part of the scene on the day Robert Kennedy was killed. Hamill focuses on the reaction of the scene, depersonalizing the event.
In contrast, Breslin focuses on the idea of pride, honor and respect. He aims to focus on how the public is effected in terms of sorrow for JFK and his wife rather than the immediate feeling of anger and need for revenge. Breslin's language creates a simple tone through repetition and timing. Breslin's piece was, shown through the choice of language, written at a different time in America when the general public had hope in themselves and their country, "I tried to go over and see the grave, "he said. "But it was so crowded a solider told me I couldn't get through. So I just stayed here and worked, sir. But I'll get over there later a bit. Just sort of look around and see how it is, you know. Like I told you, it's an honor." Pollard ( as is the sentiment of the majority of people at the time) is more than happy digging a grave for JFK and sitting back and allowing the family and close friends enjoy their time saying goodbye to their lost loved one. He sees it as his duty to his country, where as in contrast, Hamill's American public is raving around toting guns "like surrogate penises", to make them feel empowered and a part of the event, feeling the loss.
While written about similar events and only five years apart there are two very different feels to both of these pieces. When you think about American history and the assassinations that took place in the 60’s I think it sort of puts the difference of each piece into perspective. Hamill’s piece, which is written to take place at the scene of Robert F Kennedy’s murder, comes after a series of assassinations that had taken place that decade. Seemingly, each one is a blow to any hope he (and others) had at the time for America’s future.
Aside from that, Hamill’s piece is extremely personal in comparison to Breslin’s. Hamill is writing about his friend, he talks of seeking vengeance and at the same time is trying to find peace. In that way, Hamill’s piece becomes more emotionally complex.
Breslin’s piece doesn’t culminate this same way. It’s much more removed than Hamill’s piece. Breslin’s personal feelings do not play as outright of a role in his story. Instead, his story focuses on mourning and the honor associated not only with serving the president, but with this specific president, JFK, even after life. That in the days after his life, the country still revolves around him—Pollard is honored to work on a Sunday, his wife follows his casket through the streets of Washington, and families throughout America, crying in their living rooms, waited for what would come next.
I think it’s the span of time between these two pieces that makes them feel so differently. When you think about the assassinations that took place between JFK and Robert F Kennedy, it seems like there is a serious decline in society’s progression. JFK, Malcolm X, Dr. King, RFK, Evers (prior to JFK’s death), all killed in just a decade. I think this sort of frustration and helplessness is what comes through in Hamill’s piece. Almost like, “Why am I a part of this society?” At the time when Breslin wrote his story, there was still hope for society. You can see through his writing that he felt there was hope: that this awful tragedy somehow brought the American people closer together because they had to be strong for one another. But the feeling way temporary, only to be torn apart again by a series of tragic assassinations, that, through Hamill’s piece, could not be reconciled the same way.
Hamill and Breslin both wrote about similar events (the assassinations of both Robert and John Kennedy). However, these pieces were both written very different. Hamill's piece is written in first Breslin's piece is written in third person. I think the language choice is the most important part of both pieces.
Breslin's piece was about the emotions that other people felt because of John Kennedy's death. The reader didn't have much insight into what Breslin felt about the death.
Breslin does use simple words, but he chose the right ones because they definitely spark a lot of emotion. He focused on the grave digger in the beginning of the piece and he then focused on Jackie Kennedy and he showed the reader how they felt. He observed this through their actions. This is why language has a lot to do with this piece. The right words setup how the reader will react. I, myself, was getting teary when he spoke about Jackie Kennedy and how the casket is a symbol that his death is forever.
Now, since Hamill was so close to Robert Kennedy's murder he had a different spin on his piece. He uses a lot of language that expresses his opinion of America. Whenever he was angry, he would throw in phrases like "America had struck again" and how "Americans were doing what they do best." This is evidence that he had strong views already prior to this incident. Hamill's language in his piece used a lot of details. I think they were important because they set the story up.
The choice of language and the point of view are the obvious differences between the pieces written by Breslin and Hamill.
Breslin wrote in the third-person and used the perspective of Clifton Pollard. Because of this, his feelings were essentially removed from the story.
Hamill, however, didn’t really hold back. He wrote in the first-person and didn’t try hard to conceal his opinions about the assassination and American culture in general.
“Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying, and cursing because hope doesn’t last long among us.”
While Breslin chose straightforward language, Hamill chose somewhat poetic language. They did however share their use of repetition. Breslin used “she walks” and Pollard’s pay rate; Hamill used repetition in single sentences: “Sick. Sick. What kind of country is this? Sick. Sick.”
It's obvious that the main difference between the two pieces is that Breslin talks about the death from a funeral and Hamill talks about the death from the scene. There's more though.
Hamill's story is much more personal. Breslin describes people at the funeral and their pain with the circumstance while Hamill details his own pain. Hamill speaks directly about what the death means to him.
Even moreso, Hamill's story lacks the closure of a funeral. If you've ever experienced an "untimely" death, you know that at first you're shocked, and then that turns to anger, and then a longing to escape. Usually in grieving, when the funeral comes, we are much more subdued and our wounds are more or less cauterized.
Breslin's wounds are cauterized, Hamill's are freshly cut and immersed in stinging salt water.
In terms of writing style, I think this is accomplished mostly by the narrative and by the pace. Breslin's story is more removed and slow/steady. Hamill's pieces is fiery, quick, and deeply personal.
Aside from the obvious similarities between the two stories, Breslin and Hamill use very different approaches to expressing the uncertainty of America after the loss of Robert and John F.Kennedy.
In his piece, Hamill provides a personal account of the scene, an account that reveals his emotions, anger, and concerns. Rather than plainly describing the scene of the assassination, he appropriately bombards the reader with quotes, details and opinions that accurately convey his severe frustration toward the man who killed Robert Kennedy. The theme mainly explored in this piece of literary journalism is his disappointment and loss of hope in America. He compares Robert Kennedy to people like Martin Luther King, people who were killed for trying to do what he thought was the right thing.
Unlike Hamill, Breslin doesn’t paint a picture of the John F. Kennedy assassination. If he did, he would have been writing the very story so many journalists wrote at the time of his assassination. Instead, Breslin uses the person who would usually go unnoticed as a way to capture the impact Kennedy had on the people of America. By including the funeral scene, Breslin was able to detach himself from the scene of the association and provide details that made Kennedy a person, a man with a wife, a man with children, a man whose duty was not only to serve America but his family as well.
For me, the biggest aspect of Hamill’s story that jumped out and immediately separated itself from Breslin’s was the tone. Breslin wrote his story with a solemn feel, people doing their duty and being strong in the wake of a national and personal tragedy. While Hamill wrote his piece with anger, about the reaction to the Senator’s death and the hopeless despair that everyone felt afterwards.
The characters in Breslin’s story go about their lives after John F. Kennedy’s murder with a sense of hope. This is best exemplified by his account of Jackie Kennedy walking in her husband’s funeral procession, “she was walking into the history of this country because she was showing everybody who felt old and helpless and without hope that she had this terrible strength that everybody needed so badly.”
In a stark contrast to Breslin’s hopeful portrayal of the former first lady being strong for her country Hamill paints the whole country in a harsh light, furiously calling out Los Angeles governor Sam Yorty for flipfloping his opinions on the late Senator. Hamill tries the convey the hopelessness of the situation, “America had struck again,” he writes, “Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying, and cursing because hope doesn’t last very long among us.”
The two writers both do an excellent job of capturing the aftermath of an assassination, the immediate despair and the profound strength that rises up after that has settled.
Post a Comment