Compare the structure of the pieces by Davis, Orwell, and Herr. What changes do you notice? How are these changes in form related to the changing conception of imperialism and war? To the changing purpose of literary journalism?
Your response is due by 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 28 .
13 comments:
Davis' piece begins with a scene setter. He describes the environment and atmosphere before diving in to the real reason behind the story. Davis utilizes the concept of light to symbolize Rodriquez's internal power. For example, he describes how dark it was the morning of the execution, but then states how the light grew stronger, the line of soldiers could be seen, and Rodriquez was leading the pack. This analogy continues throughout the whole piece and therefore, Rodriquez is viewed as a hero. The reader feels empathy for the fact that Rodriguez is condemned to death because Davis humanizes him and describes him as any average guy trying to protect his family instead of an enemy or menace. There is no dialogue in Davis' piece, simply the account of what occurred along with bits and pieces of Davis' subjectivity. Every sequence of events or description of someone received its own paragraph and it was easy to follow. Davis wrote as though he were speaking to the reader, using the terms "you" and "us" but did not include the "I" pronoun until the very end. After reading it, the idiocy of the Spanish is seen clearly and the reader feels like they should be the ones facing death instead of this one single poor man. Rodriguez was killed with his home in sight, which shows how the Spanish invaded every aspect of the Cubans lives.
Orwell's piece differs from Davis' because instead of portraying the subjects as admirable and heroic, he compares them to pathetic, animalistic creatures who spend their whole meaningless lives working and starving. Orwell speaks very matter-of-factually about the condition these people lived in and even pokes in humor about the gazelle. Flies are a reoccurring theme, seen at the very beginning circling around dead bodies, but later a swarm of children is compared to "clouds of flies." Orwell states that the native people are virtually invisible where Davis described Rodriguez as a stand out. Orwell also states that the natives believe the white race are the masters where Davis tried to make Rodriquez seem more white to gain more sympathy from the reader. Orwell shows his distaste for imperialism on page 436 when he states that countries like Asia and Africa become tourist spots because no one notices the poverty of "brown skins." In that paragraph he shows how cruel humans can be to one another.
Herr uses the most dialogue out of the three pieces. His accounts and recollection of events prove how our country should not have entered Vietnam because it only led to an overwhelming amount of causalities and distress with no reward. The one solider Herr describes as the best in the group is also deemed the most insane. There is no step by step chronology to Herr's piece between paragraphs, but the scope of time is not really the important aspect of the piece. He focuses on the emotions, fears, and thoughts of himself along with the soldiers to get his point across. War is filled with unnecessary horrors that leave the soldiers permanently scarred, either physically or emotionally, but usually both.
In Davis' piece, there was a small uplifting moment. Rodriquez was seen as a hero instead of a victim, and he fought and died for a bigger and better cause. However, this concept changes through the other two pieces and by the time one reads Herr, there is not an ounce of positivity in the piece. Every line is filled with anxiety, despair, and paranoia. This shows how the scope of imperialism and war have changed. Society is sick of war yet we are always in a constant state of one.
Within Davis, Orwell and Herr’s pieces of writing, their changes/differences in structure represent each author’s attitude of their specific wartime situation. War is always constantly changing and their specific structures conveys the message in each a different way.
The structure of Davis' piece involves the use of visualization as he uses strong details of the atmosphere and landscape in the beginning of the story. The ambiance is first dark, lit only by the moonlight, but the light grows stronger and brighter just like the Rodriguez’s brave spirit. Davis also details the features and mannerisms of Rodriguez to show his self-control and courage. Davis writes at a slow tempo where he is watching/writing what is happening, this is to build up the tension. Also Davis leaves his opinion out of the story, there is no narrative. It is simply about Rodriguez and allows the reader to experience a glimpse of war.
On the other hand, Orwell uses his own thoughts in the narrative, however it isn’t the focus of his story. He uses the descriptions of the different types of people affected by the war to structure his story. Using many details, he gets directly to the point of his feelings of imperialism and it becomes personal.
Unlike Davis’ piece, Herr’s piece is non-chronological and fragmented. This conveys the craziness and mental breakdown because of the harsh reality of war. There is a lot of dialogue that also reflects the chaos and confusion of the Vietnam war. As he uses flashbacks of conversations, it helps to convey the madness of the war. He also uses his own personal account and detailed emotions to tell the story which helps to really get the reader to feel personally connected to what is going on.
Richard Davis uses a lot of imagry to tell his story. He focuses mainly on the scenery. The story not only makes Davis look like a people watcher, but he describes everything. He paints a a scene and then directly goes to the point about Rodriguez. Davis also compares Rodriguez to American Revolutionist, Nathan Hale, emphasize how extraordinary he was in Cuba.
Like Davis, George Orwell is a people watcher. What makes him different is that he draws conclusions on people based on his own beliefs and opinions on how society should work. His story reminded me of a journal entry.
I agree with the fact that Herr's overall theme of his piece is crazyness. He begins the story by mentioning a drug. That drug becomes a metaphor for all the messed up stuff that happened during the Vietnam War. A drug can calm you down and/or alter your universe. He wrote this story in such a way that as a reader, I felt like I was in an alternate universe. This was the feeling that many people had when they went to Vietnam.
The primary difference between Davis and the other two pieces is the complete lack of dialogue. While Herr's piece is heavily reliant on his interactions with the soldiers and his personal experiences, Davis's piece is devoid of his own impression. The utilization of the sunrise gives a very real start and finish to the piece and feels like a glimpse into a removed incident. He does very little to explain the nature of the conflict, but relies on this moment and familiarizing the reader with Rodriguez to portray the conditions of the war.
Contrary to this, Herr's invokes panic by uprooting and disorienting the reader with the surroundings. It also illustrates the style of warfare taking place in Vietnam, and how chaotic things had become. Herr's emotions are everywhere, he expresses his terror and relies on personal reaction to portray the Vietnam war. Another unique aspect of Herr's piece is that while he is heavily involved and impacted by the war, he seems very uncertain of his role, it's as if he's simply along for the ride.
Orwell's piece is different entirely, for while he claims he merely points out facts his presence and interpretation of the situation is undeniable. His piece concentrates primarily on the social context of the situation, and he is keenly aware of his presence and status especially as a white male.
Davis’ account is romanticized and portrays this expatriate as fearless. Rodriguez is shown to possess more poise and courage than the Spanish army that’s firing upon him. It’s organized as a satire against the military regime. Out of the three, this piece seems to be the least heavy. Yet, all pieces possess this idea that humanity can be stripped away. Davis referred to Rodriguez as an ‘it’ towards the end, and as soon as he was dead he basically became nothing. In Orwell’s Marrakech, there exists the clearest example of how older women and persons of color are virtually ignored and their lives become meaningless under Anglo-European colonization. The animals warrant more of a response from Orwell, the overloading of the donkeys’, than the “L- shaped” woman who break their backs and tend to the fields endlessly.
In Herr’s Dispatches, he’s referred to as “fresh meat” and he can’t initially understand this. Vietnam was a place where you weren’t expected to return from. They kept shuffling men in and out from Saigon to be swallowed up by the jungle, representing this idea that men were disposable to this war machine and that the only people they were hurting was they themselves. Herr’s story can represent the idea that colonialism was a messy job, the French failed and then America couldn’t get a foot in the door either. It was a time where previous powers couldn’t manage their colonies because of their own domestic, internal problems and they had to let them go. In this piece, Herr is much more cynical and sarcastic then those authors that wrote before him. He just lists things he experiences, almost turning this war machine into an erotic thing.
He admits that the war changed him, but Orwell and Davis seemed to stick to their convictions pre and post experiences; Orwell always an anti-imperialist and Davis navigating through several wars after this Cuban affair. To reference the beginning segment of Dispatches, Herr says “Conventional journalism could no more reveal this war than conventional firepower could win it.” He had to change the way war was reported as Vietnam was anything but conventional warfare. Herr had free range to take these metaphors that didn’t always make sense, like what we talked about in class with snakes being left in a jar too long, but they were able to fly for the sake of powerful imagery.
The three stories just represent this changing progression of how war is reported and more of a spotlight on losing your humanity in the face of battle, starting with a Cuban named Rodriguez to the fresh faced platoons of Vietnam.
Davis’ piece starts off using the light and the light gets stronger as Rodriguez gets closer to his death. Once he is dead, the light is the strongest and it fills the scene with warmth. The entire piece is only a short period of time and told in a chronological order. Also, Davis is observing from a distance what is happening to Rodriguez and there is no dialogue. Because Rodriguez seems so helpless and accepting of his death, I feel that the Cubans tolerated the war.
Orwell, like Davis, is observing everything he sees but Orwell uses his opinion and commentary in the story. Orwell’s piece isn’t told in any type of order and there isn’t any sense of time, just different observations that he makes. Most of his observations portray imperialism and how different groups are affected by it. There is also some dialogue in the piece as well.
Herr’s piece uses the most dialogue out of all the pieces and from this his emotions are everywhere giving the feeling that war was everywhere around him. He shows how war affected him personally with his fears and anxieties. He also doesn’t tell his story chronologically. Herr is first handedly experiencing the war and is a part of it whereas Davis and Orwell basically observed what was going on around them.
I think that these three pieces show how literary journalism has evolved. Davis’ was the first written and it is just an observation with no dialogue and very little emotion or opinion. Orwell’s was written in the middle and we are introduced to opinion while he is observing his surroundings, and finally Herr’s piece has the real emotion and the first account experience giving the reader a thorough feeling of what is was like to be there at that time during the war. As time progresses, we see that the literary journalism has more emotion and opinions and the writer is more involved in the action of war.
All 3 pieces have the commonality of talking about war, but they are all very different.
Davis' Death of Rodriguez reads like a story. He ties in literary devices such as symbolism of light to portray a cruelty of war.
Orwell's Marrakech reads as a commentary. The way he uses language is taking his observation and merely commenting on what he sees as the ignorance of the human condition.
Herr's Dispatches piece reads as a sporadic stream of conscious. His writing reflects the confusion and the scarring war leaves on combatants.
Davis' story-like account of the execution is detailed oriented. Davis doesn't leave anything out, and uses his comments to direct the audience to feel a certain way about the people and the soldiers. Even though he is writing in first person, his descriptions take on a third person omniscient feel. It is only at the end where he injects himself in his piece and gives the only first person commentary of the piece.
On the other hand Orwell's piece is the exact opposite of Davis'. Orwell is constantly purging his observations of the disparity in a colonial state. He is able to support his commentary with detailed accounts from his observations. Orwell isn't telling the audience they need to feel a certain way he's pointing out that we already do feel this way and this is how society is. We are ignorant, and by his descriptions about how the brown skin people are invisible it becomes a fact.
At some points, Herr's writing itself doesn't make sense, it's confusing. On page 500, Herr talks about mobility. He says it has saved his life or maybe it hasn't. It's evident in this writing that Herr has lost his sense of reality. Because of Herr's sporadic choppy writing, the war has become his normality. He recounts conversations with people that support how absurd the world he is living in his. He is not making an anti-war statement, but rather writes about his concerns of survival.
Herr's piece is more like Davis's to me because both are focused on the detail of actions. Herr experiences life in Vietnam during the war, Davis watches the execution of Rodriguez, while Orwell's piece is more reflective than anything, with its focus on the social status of a particular group of people. Orwell reports just as Herr and Davis does, but with far more commentary or opinion than the other two.
The statement Herr makes on page 504, "it took the war to teach it, that you were as responsible for everything you saw as you were for everything you did," shows that his time dispatching in Vietnam became more of a personal experience for him, which I feel makes his and Orwell's piece alike. Their pieces also compare in the use of dialogue, which is something Davis's piece lacks all together.
I think that Orwell and Davis's piece compare in that they both evoke sympathy from the readers for their subjects.
The difference in all these pieces to me is the urgency, Herr's being the most urgent because of the predicament (caught in warfare) he puts himself in to explore what was happening in Vietnam. He states on page 504, "I went to cover the war and the war covered me."
All of these changes relate to the changing conception of imperialism and war because of the different ways these subjects are approached. In some instances, the topic of war and imperialism can can evoke sympathy or simply bring a consciousness to things people were unaware of or didn't care about. These two topics, war and imperialism, are things I feel no one really thinks about until it directly affects them.
All of these pieces present human struggle, or more so, says a lot about the human condition, the affects of war and the people we forget to care about. I think these pieces relate to the changing form of literary journalism in that they are more about telling experiences rather than just news. All three of these pieces explore affects war and imperialism can have on people socially, mentally, and even economically.
Reading Herr's piece "Dispatches" was a bit difficult for me at first because of the writing technique he used. He used so many commas that in the beginning it was hard to understand whether he was finishing a point, or making a new one. But after a while I just feel into it because there's so much going on and Herr's writing technique give this cinematic feel. I almost felt like I was watching "Apocalypse Now."
Davis’ piece is told from a far distance. He speaks of Rodriguez and his struggles, but not of his own. His story lacks dialogue, something that the other two stories make use of. Thus, it reads like a story that you would find in an English class’ anthology textbook rather than a journalistic piece.
Orwell’s piece sends the message that women and children are ignored in imperialism. He speaks through detailed sections -- he begins by describing the town, then moving on to the public gardens, then to the Jewish quarters, and so on. His piece shows that literary journalism does not need to have a set beginning or end (as mentioned in the introduction), but rather it needs to simply tell the story it wants to tell.
Herr’s piece is more personal. His use of “I” allows the reader to attempt to connect with him and his story. He uses the approach of letting readers know almost like an “inside scoop” -- for example, he opens his piece by saying that medics give soldiers Dexedrine. His vivid details and description also allow the reader to connect to him and his story.
The similarities between Davis, Orwell and Herr begin with the genre of writing: war correspondence. Orwell’s piece was mainly commentary, and although it was five vignettes, it still felt old-world style fable telling. Similar to Herr, with no beginning, middle or end, he opened in media res and ends with a poetic image. Orwell and Herr are also similar in the way that they were correspondents identifying with the party doing wrong– although Orwell is British and the occupying army in Morocco was French, they were all white people colonizing a nonwhite country. Herr identified as an American. Although he was not a soldier, he just as well may have been because he was embedded with soldiers and told their story. Additionally, every American felt a responsibility and guilt for the war in some way. Davis is different because he was there as a complete outsider, neither identifying with the victim nor the oppressor. Davis’ piece is chronological and linear, and has a beginning middle and end, whereas the other two do not. His is the most like a traditional news story, I felt, but in first person.
All three pieces were also similar in that the authors do care to some extent about the humans around them but mostly from a selfish place. Davis admired the bravery of Rodriguez and cared enough to eulogize him but not enough to try to do anything about it before he was killed. Orwell cared more about the donkeys then the people, and wrote of how invisible he thought the native people were. Herr wrote about how hard it was on the American soldiers, how they were dying, how they were handling to stress without going crazy. The meaning behind the piece was not, “These poor Vietnamese.”
What Herr’s piece does brilliantly, however, is capture the essence of the time and place by using the language the soldiers used. By speaking their language he was able to truly tell their story. The structure is stream of consciousness. His writing is heavily descriptive, relying more on projecting an overall feeling of the atmosphere, capturing the ethos, rather than a chronological, linear structure. There was no plot, because the plot is unimportant. What is important is the meaning Herr was conveying, an overall sense of injustice, fear and disgust. This is an example of modernism in writing, the main difference separating Herr’s journalism from Orwell and Davis’.
Davis' piece begins with setting the scene of the execution. The author throughout this story presents Rodriquez as a brave fearless man who "with his weight resting on his heels like a soldier on parade, and with his face held up fearlessly, as is that of a statue." Readers feel sympathetic for Rodriguez because the Spaniards just kill him careless glancing at his body the man asleep in the wet grass, motionless and lifeless. Davis describes this is execution as one scene and does not include and any sort of dialogue just vivid descriptions of every action. Davis paints a sympathetic conception of imperialism and war where you feel sorry and pity on a brave man who deserved to live. The author’s subjectivity brings upon the readers sorrow for Rodriquez.
Orwell's piece that some may agree is pointing out the facts and what he observes in this region. He differs from Davis in that he is extremely objective when he mentions the people’s invisibility and the routine of old women carrying firewood, the bodies reduced to bones and leathery skin, and the fly infested rest infested restaurant. Unlike Davis, Orwell included little dialogue but focuses on the everyday life and condition of these people. I do feel though those Orwell descriptions make you feel sorry for those imperialized and taken over by the colonies. Orwell presents the families as enslaved and explains them as invisible bodies most of the time.
Herr unlike both Davis and Orwell concentrates solely on dialogue and the psychological mind set of man out there trekking through the jungle fearing every step he takes, hoping it's not his last one. Herr focused his conception of war on the dehumanization of a person. Throughout the story there is dialogue and interaction with multiple soldiers, fellow correspondents, and other men in various ranks. The structure of this piece is in no particular order and is based on recollections of different experiences and feelings. Some soldiers, like the one he mentioned in the beginning says "I just can't hack it back in the world." His conception is simple. War is hell. Soldiers are just trying to stay alive and not step on a mine or get caught in a booby trap. He emphasized the fear in the human as the walk through the jungle, "fear and motion, fear and standstill..." He describes the life sucked out of some soldiers from being out there too long. Herr tells the reader that war really jumbles your mind. You don’t know what you’re doing sometimes and don't know what the next minute will bring. I feel that Herr really wanted to grab the reader into the mind of a soldier and feel the emotions and psychological damage.
Richard Harding Davis, George Orwell, and Michael Herr each possess unique styles of writing. In “The Death of Rodriquez”, Davis’ style is clear. He focused the greater part of his writing on establishing the scene and visual aspects of the story. He narrates through a concrete structure, of scene after scene, however he also inputs his own opinions, intertwining his perceptions with descriptions. For instance, Davis added, “..he was shockingly young for such a sacrifice, and looked more like a Neapolitan than a Cuban,” which is his opinion, rather than an actual fact. His writing is linear and chronological, lacking any sort of dialogue. This shows the powerful impact Davis created using mere descriptions and specific details. Davis also incorporates many archetypal symbols (light, dark, seasons etc.) throughout the piece, which act as a figurative way to insert emotion and symbolism into the story.
George Orwell’s main difference from Davis is that his writing is not linear, lacking both a strong introduction and conclusion. One can think of this as when a movie opens, and you are instantly in the middle of an intense scene, not knowing how you got there, or why. In my opinion, this makes for interesting writing. In “Marrakech” Orwell is an observer, adding commentary to the people in the area. Whether it is all fact or opinion is subjective to the reader. There is little dialogue, unlike Davis,
Herr’s piece “Dispatches” conveyed the setting of the war through means of his choppy, out-of-order style. His writing is very poetic and figurative, incorporating metaphors and personification to add passion and meaning to the descriptions. “…like dead snakes kept in a jar too long.” Herr also uses a wide variety of dialogue, but less structure to the piece all-together. This is another way that describes the craziness and insanity occurring all around him. He also conveyed this through his own emotions and feelings, which is a way that to evoke the madness and struggles into the heads of the readers.
Davis, Orwell, and Herr all have written pieces covering wars. That is the main theme of the three stories we read by these three authors. However, the three pieces were written in such different ways that a reader can experience many different feelings and opinions after reading each one. A main way to convey these different feelings about war is how they are formatted and what devices are used to tell the story.
In Davis’ piece, the story is told from a distance. He uses light symbolism throughout the entire piece, starting off in the dark and growi8ng lighter as the story progresses. It’s interesting that he chose to not use any dialogue. Instead he places an emphasis on scenery and uses very vivid descriptions. Instead of using his own opinions, he mainly uses his character Rodriquez to tell the story. He describes Rodriquez as someone to admire and gives off this sense of pride, almost a patriotic-like feeling for the reader to soak up.
Orwell’s piece is very different in that he uses his own voice to tell the story. He is not shy about his feelings towards imperialism. Opposite of Davis, he comes across as condemning society because of his disgust for the human race. He is disgusted with imperialism and the way that people of the human race treat each other. Orwell does use dialogue and uses details to describe his own observations, things he’s seen with his own eyes, giving the reader a closer more personal look into the war.
Herr’s piece, to me, was the most interesting format for writing. I think one of the main points he was trying to make is that war is chaos. War is crazy and can drive anyone to insanity. The format of his writing is set up to make the reader feel the chaos and the insanity. By being all over the place instead of a scene to scene format, you can almost feel yourself becoming dizzy while you are reading. Herr’s piece can be compared to that of Orwell’s in that is also a negative outlook on war. Herr’s piece is extremely vivid and does not show a single positive aspect of the war. Herr also uses a lot of dialogue to make the reader feel the insanity of the war.
Post a Comment