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, April 17, 4 p.m.
14 comments:
These stories fall on a similar emotional narrative perspective. They showcase the depression and loss of control of a nation, more so Hamill than Breslin though. There biggest similarity is how the story is more than the death of leader but the death of hope in humanity. How with these deaths trying seems to worthless or is constantly confronted with a dead end. The language in each piece helps push these ideas. In Breslin, "seven leafless oak trees" and "mother of two fatherless children". These show an indication of hopelessness and disappear.
Although both the Breslin and Hamill stories are interconnected through the death of a Kennedy, the story overall is not particularly about that incident, per say. Instead, the authors try to focus the reader into the hopeless society that Americans were living in at that time. Though Robert and John Kennedy died and it was a horrible day for Americans, whether they were still alive Americans would still feel despairing for themselves and for America overall. In addition, while Hamill addresses the issue as a first hand witness to the death of Kennedy, Breslin is more a bystander. Both journalists experience these events, just from different perspectives. Breslin also uses metaphors to represent this loss of hope and dreams.
Both Breslin and Hamill's stories, while discussing different events, have the same meaning and same message that with the death of two leaders who represented the American ideal and dream, so too does America die. I thought what was interesting about reading the two pieces together is how Breslin's piece is written to portray the immediate fall of the American Camelot. But then when you get to Hamill's piece, the imagery he uses when juxtaposing the room where Rob Kennedy gives his speech and his departure from that room gives a feeling of how America has changed in the time where not only has Jack Kennedy been assassinated, but so have Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as well. It shows how even with a moment of joy and victory at the center, all around it is despair and anger. I was particularly struck by Hamill's description of how he could feel the Jack Ruby rise in him as he chased after the shooter. It showed how the anger and grief everyday Americans had been struck with during those past several years has grown and festered and turned them into murderers they never thought they would become.
Both articles involve the death of a Kennedy brother, but I think the point of view of each story is different. Breslin's story is more focused on Pollard, and he gives the story a sort of simplicity during a very tough time for America. Pollard is a man who digs graves for $3.01 an hour and feels it is an honor to bury the president. It feels like it's something Forrest Gump would get to do. While Americans feel lost and hopeless by the death of their leader, there's Pollard still going strong and digging graves, it shows something about America.
Hammil tells his story from his point of view about the death of Robert Kennedy. Hammil even explains the hatred and anger built up in him towards the killer. Hammil explains how he wanted to hurt him. The hopelessness and anger in America was soon showing through Hammil.
Both stories have a lot of similarities, besides both being about the death of a Kennedy. Breslin's story is less connected emotionally, as it is pretty much the point of view of a gravedigger or someone watching in the distance. Hamil's story is strong with a sense of dissapointment. Both stories express a loss of hope in humanity, even as Breslin trys to make the Kennedy funeral seem less political and treat them like anyone else suffering a loss. Until he mentions the gravedigger getting paid 3.01 an hour...and saying "it's an honor". It allows for a chance of hope for humanity, but at the same time, a bit more depressing.
I think the biggest difference in the two pieces is the tone. Both are about the assassination of a Kennedy, they both express humanitarian issues. I think the tone in the Hamil story is that of a loss of faith in humanity. Its shameful, full of horror and disgust. I almost talks about the death of humanity with the death of Robert Kennedy. In the Breslin piece, the tone is very different. It talks about pride. It makes me think of patriotism, of a soldier dying in battle. To dig a grave and call it an honor expresses the greatness of John Kennedy. Instead of highlight how tragic America is, it makes you think of all the positive things Kennedy brought to the table. It makes you think that even when bad things, there is still hope in the world.
The Hamill and Breslin pieces do feel different. For me I think it has to do with the fact that Breslin is more telling you what to think - and Hamill is showing you. Both are told as a reflection to the past but Hamill's feels to me more like a memory and and gives a connection to the story because you feel the eerie sense that something is going to happen, and you feel the shock that the people in the room are going to feel almost before they feel it. I hope that makes sense. Breslin's piece is sadness and anger mixed together but conversely it also seems more like a hard news story than Hamill's. He uses exact time, says "yesterday" and recounts the facts (age, 42) more so than subjective ... "pimply messenger from the secret heart of America." Both an interesting commentary on American culture and nationalism. -K
While both of these stories are essentially about the same thing, something I noticed that is very distinct about each is the emotional tone the pieces are written in. Breslin's account of JFK's funeral and the digging of his grave focuses mainly on a description of the event with the reader left to interpret the overall meaning for herself. Hamill's longer, more colorful piece on Robert Kennedy is full of poetic phrases, images, and how he feels about all that is going on. His reaction to Kennedy's death is clear and he aims to make a point about society using his direct impressions.
Of course the Breslin and Hammill pieces are linked in the fact that they both are concerned with the assassination of JFK (as if you need to be reminded, I'm just putting it in for good measure.) I don't know if it qualifies as a literary technique, but in both pieces the unparalleled respect that Americans have for the almost mythical JFK is obvious. Of course the point of 'It's an Honor' is that final line, in which Clifton Potter says that it's an honor to dig the hole that a man is going to be buried in, and in the Breslin piece you can sense this feeling that the author is realizing that American innocence and discourse is being laid to rest with the Kennedy brothers. Feel me?
What I'm saying is that both pieces regard Kennedy as an almost-holy symbol of America, to be unilaterally revered, people who encompass all the good that America can produce. To dig a hole for them is one of the greatest honors you can attain, and their deaths are the end of an age of goodness.
Although both the Breslin and Hamill stories were about the same subject, the tone is different. Similar to what Kristin said, the Breslin piece talks more about patriotism and almost a sense of martyrdom, while the Hamill piece is a bit more somber-sounding. The different tones in the two pieces signify how the same subject can be depicted in completely different ways.
I would say the biggest difference between these pieces is the tone. Breslin’s story is sad but focuses on the honor of preparing a gravesite for John F. Kennedy. It is much easier to read then Hammil’s story because it is about making sure that John F. Kennedy would be honored. Pollard focuses on making the gravesite nice and filling in the holes made by the machine digging the grave. It’s almost reassuring to read because it shows how much people cared for this man. It’s a reminder that after his death people would still mourn him years later.
Hammil’s story is darker. It tells the reader exactly what happened on the night of Robert Kennedy’s death. Hammil’s story focuses on the loss that America will have to deal with. It also touches upon the sheer hatred for Kennedy’s killer because of the close relationship the narrator had with Robert. Two Minutes to Midnight makes the reader step back and look at what America was dealing with at the time. Not everyone liked Robert Kennedy and one man decided that he was to do something about it. When the damage is done, there is no going back and the way Kennedy falls to the floor is heart wrenching. Hammil writes about how his wife is there by his side comforting him in possibly his final moments. This story gets closer to a death than the other does because it is literally about how Robert Kennedy died. It carries a much heavier tone than Breslin’s story because of it’s content and the language that Hammil uses.
Hamill's story struck me as more emotional in tone, due to his being personally connected to Robert Kennedy, whereas Breslin was a more detached observer and his prose was more restrained. I do think, however, that they used listing or repetition of certain phrases to great effect. Hamill has his long, ranting paragraph with several sentences that repeat similar phrases ("____ was dead," "I hated that pimpled kid / He hated Kennedy," "when Evers died, when King died, when Jack Kennedy died..."). Breslin starts six sentences in a row with "She walked..." as he describes Jackie Kennedy's progress through the funeral procession. Both series of repetitions convey a mind-numbing sort of monotony--some emotional numbness that might rise from the consciousness, in Hamill's case, that nothing's changed and people keep dying, and in Jackie Kennedy's case, that nothing will change in the future and her husband is dead.
While both about the assassination of a Kennedy, Hamill and Breslin manage to do different things. Breslin takes on the third person and starts and ends his story with the gravedigger. In Breslin's story you get this sympathy for Jackie Kennedy, and this simple emotional connection to a humble gravedigger just doing his job. By choosing the examine these people in the third person, Breslin portrays a very altruistic sort of narrative. There's sadness and simplicity. In Hamill's narrative there's this first person anger that accompanies his piece. He makes side comments that inform you on his failed faith in Americans and humanity, and there's an urgency in his piece as he follows the events and the chaos that encompasses them. From his perspective you feel his disappointment and his energy.
I'd say the narration of the pieces definitely dictates the mood. Breslin's piece; mournful yet slyly judgmental. Hamill's piece is up front in your face opinionated.
Both pieces portray inequality, hypocrisy, hate, chaos,collapse of hope and fear in the wake of devastating assassinations. Hamill is explicitly sardonic about what irks him, while Breslin is subtly subversive. The immediateness of Hamill's piece in comparison to Breslin's is probably indicative of the mounted pandemonium of the American psyche and deflation of the American spirit, dealing with too many assassinations of hero's, figures of hope and justice over the span of ten years. His initial reaction is not fear or sorrow but hatred and anger. It's the final straw.
Post a Comment