Monday, March 28, 2011
Breslin/Hamill
Although written only five years apart and about similar events, the Breslin and Hamill stories 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 by Wednesday, March 30, 4 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Pete Hamill’s “Two Minutes to Midnight” is a very cynical account of Robert Kennedy’s assassination in 1968. Told in the first person, it clearly presents the author’s bitterness about the presidential candidate’s murder. Hamill mentions, after describing in depth what happened in the moments leading up to RFK’s death, that the murder was another in a long list of assassinations in America (he mentions Martin Luther King and JFK among others). Hamill also claims that, after the initial shock wore off, America would go back to the way it was, unchanged, and waiting for the next politician’s death to stir up feelings of patriotism and a need for change.
Jimmy Breslin’s “It’s an Honor” is a third-person account of interactions on or around John F. Kennedy’s grave after his assassination in November 1963. Breslin tells the story of Pollard, the gravedigger, and his feelings of pride for being able to dig the grave for such a great man. He mentions JFK’s widow, Jacqueline Kennedy, walking across the grave and observing it, and Vice President-turned-President Lyndon Johnson trying to avoid looking at his predecessor’s grave too frequently. Overall, the tone is much more somber, and merely presents the events, without injecting too much commentary into it.
The tones of the two stories, written five years apart, differ greatly. Hamill’s story is ful of raw emotion; he’s very upset about what he witnessed, and this story was his way of expressing it. He makes it blatantly obvious for his reader that he is displeased, and that we should feel the same way. The first person narrative makes it that much easier for him to portray his anger and frustration with America. Breslin’s piece, meanwhile, merely presents the events, and leaves the reader to interpret them as he pleases. I could tell he was upset, but he wasn’t beating me over the head with it, as Hamill has the tendency to do. It’s more subtle.
Breslin writes in third person, which gives the piece an overall tone of detachment and numbness. It helps to illustrate the general shock and numbness that set in after J.F.K.’s assignation. The use of numbers and time within the piece makes everything seem very systematic; digging graves is what Pollard does-it’s routine. This contrast nicely with the overall piece, because even if digging graves is an average day for Pollard, digging a grave for the President isn’t.
There’s a lot of death imagery in the piece. The obvious is the funeral procession, and the digging of the J.F.K.’s grave. The falling leaves that cover the grass also help to create a death image. The president has been assassinated; things are falling apart, and it seems like nature too, is reflecting that. It’s fall time, and the cycle of the seasons is coming to an end. By including these images, Breslin may be indirectly questioning if what J.F.K. represented is coming to an end too? Is social overhaul just another cycle? Movements come and go, just like presidents, etc. What does it matter? Everyone dies, as is illustrated in the final scene where Pollard is digging graves for people he doesn’t know, but is sure will be filled. He says, “They’ll be used. We just don’t know when.”
The idea that everything is a cycle or routine can be tied in with the beginning of the piece, where Breslin is showing the daily routine of Pollard. It’s depressing, but also hopeful. Death is never pleasant, but just as fall leads to winter, and eventually to spring, people too, find a way to live again. That’s why I think Breslin keeps including quotes where Pollard says, “It’s an honor.” Even if things are bad, it’s still an honor to still be alive, to be somehow connected to people who tried to do something great.
Hamill’s first person account of Bobby Kennedy’s assignation is more straight forward. He deals with cycles too, but they don’t seem to lead to a possibility of rebirth, the way that Breslin’s piece does. For Breslin, death eventually lead to “good turf”(467, Breslin). For Hamill, the death of prominent figures seems to only illustrate that the country itself if dying. He says,
“The unspoken thought was loudest: the country's gone. Medgar Evers was dead, Malcolm x was dead, Martin Luther King was dead, Jack Kennedy was dead, and now Robert Kennedy was dying. The hell with it. The hatred was now general. I hated that pimpled kid in that squalid cellar enough to want to kill him. He hated Kennedy the same way…When Evers died, when King died, when Jack Kennedy died, all the bland pundits said that some good would come of it in some way, that the nation would go through a catharsis, that somehow the bitterness, the hatred, the bigotry, the evil of racism, the glib violence would be erased. That was bullshit. We will have our four-day televised orgy of remorse about Robert Kennedy and then it will be business as usual.”
Hamill is showing how death only leads to more death, and eventually everything goes. He’s done with being hopeful. For him, it’s a vain pursuit.
In Breslin’s piece, you have a sense of a writer trying to find meaning in something tragic, and if Hamill’s piece, you see a writer whose come to the conclusion that there is no meaning in tragedy. Mankind is a savage animal, who will only destroy itself.
For these two pieces, point of view is the largest contributor to the tone of each piece. In Breslin's "It's an Honor," the third-person narrative creates a detachment from the events, of John F. Kennedy's funeral procession and the digging of his grave. Although the story follows grave-digger Clifton Pollard, there is the overwhelming sense that it is still being told through the eyes of an onlooker with no real personal attachment. Pollard and Breslin's repetition of the phrase "It's an honor" create a sense of reverence towards Kennedy, a subject looking towards his ruler. In the same instance, his colleagues don't seem to share this feeling.
"Sorry to pull you out like this on a Sunday," Metzler said." The dialogue from Metzler and the others with Pollard at the cemetery is short, and not emotional (other than Pollard's own remarks, such as "He was a good man," and his comments about the soil.)
The description of the funeral is also simple, and without the emotion of someone directly involved. In describing Jackie O., Breslin focuses on her actions, giving almost a play by play:
"Yesterday morning at 11:15 Jacqueline Kennedy started walking toward the grave...she walked straight and her head was high....she walked down...she walked past silent people," and so on. Again this creates a sense of detachment from the events while maintaining the author's sense of reverence for the subjects without his own commentary.
Hamill's "Two Minutes to Midnight" does quite the opposite in his first person narrative of the night Robert Kennedy was killed. The story being told from a first person point of view gives the piece a high emotional charge, allowing for the use of more colorful language and a sense of the author's involvement with his subject.
" Young girls with plastic Kennedy boaters chanted like some lost reedy chorus from an old Ray Charles record." This line creates a vivid picture while also engaging the reader through a cultural reference. Hamill gives descriptions like this through the whole piece, giving it a cinematic feel as well.
"...but his face reminded me somehow of Benny Paret the night Emile Griffith hammered him into unconsciousness." is another great example of how Hamill's point of view helps recreate the scene for the reader.
Hamill's piece, in his descriptions and commentary, becomes like an editorial on America. He is able to hash out his issues with America through this commentary, giving the piece strong emotion. His use of metaphor, as he sees the "pimply" shooter that is "America" doing what it does best, is a strong indicator of Hamill's own feelings, and a device that no doubt accesses the feelings of the audience. Although this could be done in a different point of view, it is wholly complementary to Hamill's style and attitude. When Hamill is discussing the mayor, Sam Yorty, he says "How about keeping your fat pigstink mouth shut." A line as poignant and strong as that would not have the same effect had it been written as a quote in a third person narrative. Instead, lines like it in this piece, are profound because the readers know that the intent, that it was directed to someone and thought out before it was put there and not just a comment from some passerby.
Hamill's anger and disgust with his country is more than effectively portrayed by a first person narrative, but it is practically tangible to readers with his descriptions and commentary.
The difference in perspective in these two stories is crucial. Hamill is definitely the author who is disgusted with the entire scene, and the entire condition of society. His perspective in the story plays an important role, because it gives it a more vivid, human-feeling description. And you, as the reader, sort of sense the chaos that the author went through, and the pain and suffering he saw, and how it effected him personally.
When Hamill says “We knew then that America had struck again,” he’s putting forward his opinion that this is almost just a cycle in our culture. We pick people up, and then we bring them right down. Hamill probably, now, would point to celebrities like Barry Bonds and Charlie Sheen. It’s almost become engrained as a part of our culture, and that’s just the way America is now. And because the story is told in the first person, it makes that point of view a little more understandable; how could you see a shooting and murder of such a prominent public figure and not become cynical? When you can see the blood pouring out of him, how can you not think back to previous murders, specifically his brother, and not see a pattern?
Breslin definitely sees the JFK assassination as an aberration. But, of course, it happened before the shooting of Robert Kennedy, so that would be a little more understandable. But since he writes it in the third person, because he wasn’t actually there, the story does lose some of its human element – it almost seems as if Breslin is trying to make up for the fact that he wasn’t there by making his story and opinions speak to how much a tragedy it is. But in actually being there, it seems that Hamill loses all of that; and seeing it happen really makes him more cynical; which might be the opposite of what you would assume.
Jimmy Breslin's "It's an Honor" and Pete Hamill's "Two Minutes to Midnight: The Very Last Hurrah," differ especially is narrative structure. Breslin's story takes place after the death of JFK. He begins with the life of the grave digger and expands to the burial. Breslin focuses on a specific point and zooms out but then brings the story full circle by mentioning Pollard and the honor he feels. Breslin, himself, is not in the story at all. The only dialogue is that of the gravedigger's interactions.
Hamill's account of Robert Kennedy's is much more in the moment and intense. The reader is in the dingy kitchen with Bobby Kennedy and all those people, including Hamill. Hamill definitely includes himself in the story, detailing what he saw and how he felt. I though it was interesting how, after seeing the young assassin, Hamill no longer wanted to touch him. We even see what Hamill does when he goes home. The structure of Hamill's story keeps the reader on edge. We go through the motions with Hamill. In Breslin's story, the reader and the writer are looking back, in mourning.
I think that the main difference is with the points of view. "Two Minutes to Midnight", told in first person, shows the thought process of a very angry friend of Robert Kennedy. Totally justified, the voice is very human, showing his journey from anger to despair, mourning for a friend, and realizing that the assassination signified the death of hope in the country. I really felt the despair leak through the page when he accounted to deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK... it doesn't surprise me that this would be the last chapter in how cynicism became widespread in American culture.
The Breslin story, in its third-person account, conveys the theme differently, with a more ironic, round-about message. The death of JFK is paralleled to the work of Clifton Pollard, the gravedigger. He is painted as blue-collar worker, and an ex-veteran who now makes $3.01 an hour. Yet it is him who feels honor to dig the grave of the deceased President. There is so much irony in this short story, it really make you think of how confusing and new the experience of an assassinated President must've been during the media-boom. When television gained its big wave during JFK's Presidency, and of course the election coverage preceding, America was new to seeing images and receiving news at such a fast pace and with such crisp, clear, and neat production. In comparing the culture of this story to "Two Minutes to Midnight", it becomes bizarre to realize that the death of JFK on TV was such a huge symbol for the hopes of Americans. Everything is not neat, nor expected on television; neither is it in politics. I think these stories, as a pair, really bring that realization to the surface.
In certain moments, both writers use their own voice to reveal the voice of the people. The tone of it, though, the tone of the people, differ vastly between the two pieces.
When Breslin comments on the life of Jackie Kennedy after President Kennedy was shot, there's a feeling of mutual veneration. All of the American people are now behind her, this single mother of two fatherless children. It's a uniting state of -not pity, but- empathy.
Hamill's is very different. As many others have noted, it's a lot more cynical. The most trenchant example of this is probably "The unspoken thought was loudest: the country's gone. Medgar Evers was dead, Malcolm x was dead, Martin Luther King was dead, Jack Kennedy was dead, and now Robert Kennedy was dying. The hell with it. The hatred was now general. " Desensitized to the violence of great American figures, the country is now united on only one thing: indifference.
While I thoroughly enjoyed both Hamill and Breslin’s accounts, I felt that Hamill’s “Two Minutes to Midnight” was more effective. I suppose my main reason would have to be the point of view of each piece. While Breslin’s third-person narrative was interesting to read and had a particularly innovative [in my eyes] type of writing style, I felt more connected to Hamill’s piece. This just seems difficult to reiterate through a post.
I feel that my main argument for the p-o-v battle would be the emotion that Hamill portrays in “Two Minutes to Midnight.” Hamill sets the scene of Robert Kennedy’s final day so dramatically, so perfectly. Since he’s there, and it’s a first person account, he walks you through his last moments and it really made me feel that I was witnessing the entire event unfold. I don’t know much about Robert but I really got a sense of what kind of person he was through Hamill’s writing. The craziest part of his entire piece was the fact that Hamill had no idea what was about to happen to Robert, obviously, and how even his explanation of the setting of the pantry was important; I loved this line in particular: “It was the sort of place where Puerto Ricans, blacks and Mexican-Americans usually work to fill white stomachs.”
The rest of the piece, with the pimply kid and shooting Kennedy almost had me crying – just picturing Hamill witnessing the entire event of his friend being shot over and over again, and the hysteria filtering throughout the room; “It was as if all of us there went simultaneously insane: a cook was screaming, "Kill him, kill him now, kill him, kill him!"
I especially loved the ending to Hamill’s account. His reflection on American society as a whole seems necessary to wrap up the entirety of the piece; “It was just another digit in the great historical pageant that includes the slaughter of Indians, the plundering of Mexico, the enslavement of black people, the humiliation of Puerto Ricans.” He has a satiric sort of voice here, expressing anger, confusion even with America. “I didn't have any tears left for America, but I suppose not many other Americans did either.” This final sentence left me with such a strong effect – as this horrible catastrophe was just a normal part of our everyday lives, how “Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying.”
I’m sorry if this was a scattered post. I enjoyed Breslin’s piece and his writing style, and felt effected by his story too – how JFK was just another grave he had to dig, how we can all fall a part but have to get back on our feet just as quickly- but Hamill’s piece hit home. I suppose point of view needs to be just right. Hamill’s piece probably wouldn’t have been as strong if it were in third person.
The way Breslin tells the story makes in third person makes is very effective because it allows the people in the story to flourish. You get a real sense for how each person is feeling, without Breslin directly injecting his point of view. I like it, because it really focuses on the strength that everyone involved with the funeral was able to muster up. When most reporting focuses on the “tragedy” this story brings to light the real love people had for John Kennedy.
I really like the Breslin’s writing. The beginning of the story is suspenseful, with the waiting for the telephone call and the “I guess you know what it’s for.” There were even some funny random parts, like when the superintendent says that it’s nice soil randomly. He still includes a lot of drama. “Mother of fatherless children” is very sad, yet true. “Now she knows that it is forever.” Someone I know back home went to a funeral today, and told me that the daughter of the deceased just wanted to see her mother one last time, to know it’s real. Breslin was a “tireless reporter” according to the prefix to the story. I just think Breslin focuses on somewhat unconventional angles to the event. The line “they’ll be used we just don’t know when,” is just like a ridiculous sad truth. That’s the way it is with death.
Oh, man is Hamill’s story great. The adjectives he uses are amazing: grubby, raw, dirty, horror, slimy. Awesome. I think both stories kind of start somewhere that you don’t really know for certain what’s going to come next. But then once your there, you are really thrown into the moment. Everything in Hamill’s story just really let’s me see what’s going on. I have an exact image as Kennedy’s walking through the kitchen, and this shabby looking scumbag who starts all the commotion.
“Then a pimply messenger arrived from the filthy heart of America.” What a line. Then the imagery involved with Kennedy lying on the floor with black rosary beads in his hand is epic. This guy is dark, and he’s fed up. He feels like there is something up with the assassinations that were plaguing the country, and really is letting us know that he thinks there is something more sinister going on. He really takes it hard, much harder than the other story. He knew the man he just watched die in front of him. He knew that two good men were killed. I think it’s understandable why he feels this way. First John, now Bobby, how do you explain that? How do you justify that? He has the right to be angry. So I think the first couple paragraphs in each story that take place at a different scene, before the climax, are similar. I also think the eye witness to said event is some common ground. But I think that the pride and sadness that is felt in Breslin’s piece is transformed into rage, and anger in Hamill’s story.
Jimmy Breslin’s story “It’s an honor” is the third person account of a gravedigger who believes it’s an honor to dig a grave for the recently assassinated president John F. Kennedy. The gravedigger Pollard is honored to be digging a grave for the ex-president of the United States. He works for very little money but regardless of the compensation, he still feels a strong sense of pride for accomplishing his task. This event is told as if it were a rare event in the United States, allowing the story to give off a very somber tone. This story documents the events that occurred after the assassination and does not go into detail regarding the murder, keeping the reader at a distance preventing some sort of emotional attachment.
The Pete Hamill story “two minutes to midnight “is vastly different from the Jimmy Breslin story “its an honor” although both stories document an assassination. “Two Minutes to Midnight” is told from the first person, this allows the reader to understand the feeling that the bias the author has towards a subject because the bitterness and distaste that the author feels at the moment is shared with the audience. The audience plays witness to the moments prior and after his assassination, allowing them to have a better feel for the moment and more of an emotional attachment to the situation. The author also mentions how the shock of the moment will eventually be forgotten and the country would go back to not caring. This story is full of emotion as he witnessed a murder and is deeply hurt by the actions he witnessed.
Both of these stories are sharing information about an event by telling a story of a true event. I think the main difference between the two is the style in which they are told and the narrative structure used. Not only are the stories from two completely different perspectives and narratives but the tone plays a big role in setting them apart.
By telling the story “It’s an Honor” through the eyes of a grave digger, Breslin connects the severity and importance of the death of JFK’s to the average man living in the same time period. He tells the event in a colorful detailed and direct way while still keeping the reader interested in the story whether it be fiction or not. “Clifton Pollard wasn’t at the funeral. He was over behind the hill, digging graves for $3.01 an hour,” this sentence shows that this wasn't just about a president being assassinated but how it effected other people in the present and in the cloud of hysteria produced from death. Breslin shows how the two may connect but in the end everything goes on how it was no matter what the circumstance.
Pete Hamill’s “Two Minutes to Midnight” may have a similar theme but is very different in tone. Hamill also uses a lot of details in order to paint the picture of this historic event but in the end I was shocked at the change in narrative. He went from telling a first person narrative to a stating a series of thoughts about america as a culture.
“When Evers died, when King died, when Jack Kennedy died, all the bland pundits said that some good would come of it in some way, that the nation would go through a catharsis, that somehow the bitterness, the hatred, the bigotry, the evil of racism, the glib violence would be erased. That was bullshit. We will have our four-day televised orgy of remorse about Robert Kennedy and then it will be business as usual.”
This paragraph struck me as different yet meaningful at the same time. It showed me that “Two Minutes to Midnight” wasn't just a recollection of an event but stood for something in Hamill’s eyes. Hamill got his personal ideas across to the reader along with telling a story of fact.
In “Two Minutes Until Midnight,” Pete Hamill writes about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in first person. Hamill has the advantage of being an eye witness to the events of the night of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. He shows the horror and fear that the people felt. By using first person, Hamill is also clearly voicing his opinion of the assassination. He shows his outrage of the events by the way he describes it. He is also not hesitant to show his opinion and feelings through his story. Hamill shows this through beautiful, emotionally packed lines like “Kennedy's face had a kind of sweet acceptance to it, the eyes understanding that it had come to him, the way it had come to so many others before him, the price of the attempt at excellence was death.” The narration also adds an emotional feel to his piece that Jimmy Breslin’s story definitely lacks. “I suppose he loved John Kennedy even more than I did and he has never really been the same since Dallas. Now it had happened again.” The first person point of view allows for emotional and inner-dialouge, that Breslin is unable to explore.
In “It’s a Honor” Breslin uses a third person narrator and shows the devastation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination through the eyes of the gravedigger. An interesting approach, I think it helps to add a sense of detachment by using a narrator who has no connection to the deceased. The perspective of the narrator really gives this story a much more detached and careful feel than Hamill’s story.
The way each story is narrator definitely changes the tone and even the credibility of the story. The reader depends on the narrator/point of view to help set the scene of the story. Hamill’s story displays all together a more efficient structure because of the point of view, but I also think Breslin’s piece is also very effective. Especially when he describes the line about Jacqueline Kennedy and tries to display her strength and pride for dealing so graciously with her husband’s death.
I think that Jimmy Breslin utilizing the third person point of view vastly changes how his story is interpreted, compared to Peter Hamill's " Two Minutes to Midnight."
Hamill tells his story in first person, because he witnessed Robert Kennedy being assassinated. He adds his emotion and anger to the piece easily because of this first person account. I feel that some of the anger and comments on the country could distract people from what the story really is about. It was very upsetting to read, but when he throws in insulting comments, he is merely adding to what he is complaining about.
Breslin does add some of his own opinion with the third person point of view, but it's unobtrusive. He says that Jackie Kennedy walking behind her dead husbands casket and not showing emotion gave the rest of the country strength. That may not be a fact, but it's probably true and really grabs at your emotions.
Hammill adds to much of his own opinions for my liking.
The difference between the two stories is the use of tone. I don't even believe that either writer purposely took a stand and made a conscious decision to use a certain tone for the story. I think it was a reflection of the times and the feelings of the American culture at the times that each story was written. Despite it being a short amount of time, five years, Hamill alludes to the shocking amount of atrocities that the American people witnessed through the five years when he said: "Kennedy's face had a kind of sweet acceptance to it, the eyes understanding that it had come to him, the way it had come to so many others before him. the price of the attempt at excellence was death."
The American people were jaded by a string of assassinations, not Breslin used the term "murder" for JFK, the first in the string, not assassination. The examples Hamill gives of both the hotel staff yelling to kill the bastard, and the girl outside saying "sick. sick." as if she has heard the story before, gives the reader a clear indication that it is not only his opinion, but the opinion of the masses, that this is a part of life, not simply a freak incident. Breslin saw JFK's murder as such.
Probably the most telling of examples between the two cultures differences would be the gravedigger as opposed to the cab driver. While the gravedigger was full of pride and happy to just dig the grave for a man of JFK's stature, involved in such a tradgedy, the cab driver, five years later, was quite different. To quote Hamill, "The cops were trying to get one of the wounded into a taxi. The cabbie didn't want to take him, afraid, I suppose, that blood would sully his nice plastic upholstery."
I noticed a couple of things about these pieces. The first is that they are both structured in ways that have definitive shifts in the narrative. The shifts are done differently in both pieces. In "Two Minutes to Midnight," the first half of the piece is pure sequence of events--Hamill doesn't use "I" for the first half unless he is showing his appearance in the scene. Everything changes when the pimply boy appears and nonchalantly fires shots--Hamill becomes entrenched in chaos and his writing does the same thing. The moment of narrative shift is when the story becomes Hamill's diary.
"We knew then that America had struck again. In this slimy little indoor alley in the back of a gaudy ballroom, in this shabby reality behind the glittering facade, Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying, and cursing because hope doesn't last very long among us."
The change in structure denotes the place where the story starts to take hold of your heart a little bit, and Breslin's piece kind of does the same thing.
In Breslin's piece, though, it's done a little more subtly. He begins with the more personal narrative of the gravedigger, then switches in the middle to the more detached and observed-from-afar narrative of Jackie O, and then switches back to the gravedigger. The moment when he switches to observing Jackie O is that moment where the story starts to get at you. You realize when he starts talking about her stoicism, that this event is encompassing of all people, everywhere, from the humblest salt-of-the-earth gravedigger to the woman on the cover of all the magazines.
The other thing I noticed is that both pieces get the reader to react emotionally, but authors go about it in very different ways. Breslin evokes emotion by restraining himself, and Hamill evokes emotion by letting his organs spill onto the page. Breslin writes like Jackie O walks--stoic, with his head held high. Hamill writes like a reporter who has lost faith in everything he ever wanted to believe in, and he's bitter about it.
Lastly, and quickly, both pieces write about the event as a tragedy but the tragedy is different for each writer. For Breslin, the tragedy is that America has lost an important figure, that a wife has lost her husband, that a nation is in sorrow. For Hamill, the tragedy that in America, this event was not a tragedy. No one gives a fuck. The tragedy is America and everyone in it.
Post a Comment