Thursday, October 31, 2013
Dead Kennedys
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 Tuesday, Nov. 5, 4 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Breslin’s piece has a melancholy feel to it and Hamill’s piece feels just like Hamill felt while the events of Robert Kennedy’s assassination were unfolding—angry, confused, violent, abandoned. Both pieces critique America by focusing on the “façade” in contrast to “real America.”
Language is huge in presenting this contrast in both pieces. In Breslin’s piece, Clifton Pollard, the laborer who physically dug Kennedy’s grave, is unable to attend the burial. “So I just stayed here and worked, sir. But I’ll get over there later a little bit. Just sort of look around and see how it is, you know. Like I told you, it’s an honor.” Pollard’s speech uses simple language but is also provocative. I imagine this translating into: “I’ll see how life is over in la-la land after the façade is taken away. I’m sure it’s just a dead guy in a grave. I’ll keep doing real work in the meantime.”
Hamill’s use of language shows the deteriorated optimism of the American mindset after Robert Kennedy’s assassination. He touches on everything: guns, racial prejudice and discrimination, assassinations of progressive leaders, and ultimately the dying American dream (that goes down shooting, apparently). The language used in describing Hamill’s anger toward the gunman is representative of the average American’s reaction.
Hamill also uses strong racial language to convey the sense of the façade in America. The workers in the kitchen, and all the other hired hands were black, Mexican-American, and Puerto Rican. The white American façade cannot be maintained when the minorities are unrepresented and unequal (always the kitchen workers, never the politicians). I see the gunshots in this piece as physically shattering the façade between fake American wealth and the actual reality of America. But it should be noted that everybody wanted the pimply-faced gunman dead. Violence is cyclical in America. "Kill the bastard, kill that sum of a bitch bastard," a Mexican busboy yelled. Hamill’s view in the piece comes off as schizophrenic as America was after the assassination.
Both Breslin and Hamill followed the sequence of events chronologically and thoroughly. However, while Breslin creates distance between himself and the subject by doing so, allowing his characters to express America's reaction to Kennedy's death, while Hamill actually grows increasingly more intimate with the story as an American. Hamill reacts personally to the assassination (which may or may not be because he was shot right in front of him).
While Breslin stirs readers by mechanically surveying the funeral scene, relying on pure observation to evoke emotion, Hamill expresses it in the first person. This is probably due to the difference between a somber burial and a high-action murder scene: an impassioned American at the height of action shocked and appalled at the violence before him versus a man removing himself to capture a quiet scene of mourning.
Breslin: "She walked with tight steps and her head was high and she followed the body of her murdered husband through the streets of Washington."
Hamill: "America the Beautiful: with crumby little mini-John Waynes carrying guns to the woods like surrogate penises. Yes: the kid I saw shoot Kennedy was from Jordan, was diseased with some fierce hatred for Jews. Sam Yorty, who hated Kennedy, now calls Kennedy a great American and blames the Communists. Hey Sam: you killed him too. The gun that kid carried was American. The city where he shot down a good man was run by Sam Yorty. How about keeping your fat pigstink mouth shut."
Two drastically different ways of conveying the same amount of grief.
The word that comes to mind for Jimmy Breslin’s piece “it’s an honor” is honest. The tone was definitely sad and a bit dark when he mentions the blood of her husband spilling onto her (Jacky Kennedy) lap, but overall the tone was simple and honest. It was not a dramatic re-telling of events by any means. It is not a long piece, but Breslin takes the time to go into detail about the gravedigger, Pollard. How old he is, where he is from, perhaps most importantly the exact dollar amount he makes.
“the last to serve John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who
was the thirty-fifth President of this country, was
a working man who earns $3.01 an hour and
said it was an honor to dig the grave.”
This was jarring when I read it and I kept trying to figure out why. I mean it’s not out of the ordinary for a low-earning working class man to dig a grave but why is this so shocking to the reader or so important it should be in the story? I think it’s because we need to see the average American and not just JFK. This story made everyone in it equally human from Jacky Kennedy to Clifton Pollard to Lydon Johnson. Breslin uses his simplistic yet telling language to set this human and empathetic tone.
The language in Pete Hamil’s piece was very different. There are curse words in the piece, exclamations, and a lot more dialogue. This piece actually made me cry whereas Breslin’s piece did not. Maybe that was the point. Hamil’s article was not fantastic and made of exaggerations, it was just written about a different time. The scene of a murder is much different then the scene of a funeral. You can feel the anger and the confusion in Hamil’s piece and I think that was necessary for the American people to really be able to feel that they were there.
Both pieces gave the reader insight into the psyche of America at the time, and both pieces evoked emotion, I would not say one was better than the other just different ways to reflect on a tragedy.
The two pieces were written on the same physical topic, but examined America as a whole in vastly different ways. I'd say tone and characterization were major contributing factors to how the two authors showed reactions to Kennedy's death.
Hamill seemed to react by questioning everything. People often examine the lives around them when the topic of death arises unexpectedly. He views the flaws of America in a bitter way, using harsh language and characterizing people with pity and disdain. He examined America to find a shameful lie.
Breslin's analysis was completely different and is best done in the case of the man who dug the grave. He states a poor living wage but instead of conveying pity, he presents pride in knowing that the man is made proud by the privilege or "honor" as he puts it.
Breslin showed that people could rally their strength in a sad time while Hamill's initial reactions were more fierce and disturbing. The reason these two authors are both successful despite their differences is because they both accurately conveyed ways that the diverse people of America reacted. There was no singular reaction, but a bounty of fear, bravery, love, anger, loss and gain of American identity when Kennedy died.
The differing themes and “feelings” each of these pieces evokes are two completely different concepts that are both equally relevant to the concept of death, particularly in conjunction with the passing of someone who is in the public eye. Both Breslin and Hamill use two different forms of narrative structure, and thus two different types of diction in their pieces to convey the message that they themselves felt from covering the death of a Kennedy.
Breslin was not present at the actual death as Hamill was, and chose to cover the event by describing the grave digger of Kennedy’s grave as well as his wife on the day of the his burial. This provides a story that does not go into depth about the actual assassination, but the effects the assassination had on people both connected to Kennedy on various levels. The description of Jacqueline Kennedy’s physical actions and Pollard’s dialogue both indicate a sort of positivity that is found within the death – a kind of solemn content and strength with the use of things like “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” when referring to Jacqueline’s movement and Pollard’s dialogue of “The machine made some tracks in the grass over here and I’d like to sort of fill them in and get some good grass growing there, I’d like to have everything, you know, nice. By using simple diction and a very “tell it exactly like it happened” method of reporting, it helps illustrate a calm melancholy that also has some feeling of hopefulness to it that I found really beautiful and fitting. Much like attending a funeral, it gave you a pit in your stomach but also a weird feeling of closure, and it helped demonstrate how much people cared about Kennedy even in death.
Hamill’s coverage of an actually assassination was clearly mirrored in his coverage of a Kennedy death. While Breslin’s coverage conveyed the emotions that you would expect when reflecting upon one’s death, Hamill’s article was a rip current of alarming concern and frustration that you would feel if you were witness to such a tragedy. The immediate anger of a death of a friend, and in this someone touted as a great leader, comes through in the way Hamill chose to cover the story, not only giving a first-hand account of what happened but explaining why it did and what would come from it – an opinion piece full of hate and resentment one would expect after just witnesses a death. “You could feel that as we drove through the empty L.A. streets, listening to the sirens screaming in the night. Nothing would change. Kennedy's death would mean nothing.” Unlike Breslin, Hamill did not use this platform to simply articulate what had happened via first-hand account and commemorate the death of Kennedy, but as a way to illustrate his position on a bigger issue: no one will care after a while that Kennedy died, nor will his death make a difference in any sort of agenda.
While Breslin gave the impression how general American, even a grave-digger who makes $3.01 an hour, was effected emotionally and physically by Kennedy’s death, illustrating the connection between politician and population. In contrast, Hamill’s piece seems to call into question if the American people know what they are putting their faith in, and if the really believe that faith will make a different. He essentially asks the reader to ask themselves if loving – or hating – a politician or face of a cause will make a difference in the end, when Kennedy himself was shot and killed. As a person of the people his compassion and ideas didn’t save him, so who will save us?
The Breslin and Hamill stories both deal with the same event, Robert Kennedy's assassination, but are both told from different perspectives representing different points of view. The Hamill story is told from the scene of the event and therefore is obviously more violent and less dialogue driven. Throughout all the action taking place, Hamill provides the perspectives of a number of the people, his family and friends including himself, near Kennedy when he was killed.
"A huge black man, sick with grief and anger and bitterness, was throwing chairs around. Most landed in the pool." "The young Kennedy girls were crying and wailing, knowing, I suppose, what the guys my age discovered in Dallas: youth was over." "'Sick,' one girl kept saying. 'Sick. Sick. What kind of country is this?'"
The Breslin story on the other hand deals with an entirely different perspective. It portrays the actions of a the man given the task of digging Kennedy's grave, as well as those who attended his funeral. By doing this, Breslin is essentially telling the story from the point of view of the American people.
"'He was a good man'," "You know, it's an honor just for me to do this." "She walked past silent people who strained to see her and then, seeing her, dropped their heads and put their hands over their eyes."
The difference between these two stories is tone. The Breslin piece focuses more on the idea of patriotism. It shows pride and gives the feel of a soldier dying. The Hamill piece is more of a dark and gloomy piece. It shows horror. The tone of these two pieces shows how two different pieces, by two different authors can be shown in two different ways.
Both of these pieces cover the same event--Kennedy's death--but in very different ways and by describing different periods of time. Both pieces, however, use the events to talk about the larger idea of how america and americans in general felt and reacted.
I hesitate to pick one as my favorite because I feel they were so different. Hamill's story is more visceral and in-your-face because he's describing the shooting from the scene--it happened right beside him which makes for an incredibly cathartic story. This story is driven by the events and the dialogue amidst the unfolding chaos. Breslin's piece on the other hand is more orderly, and tame, for he is describing the funeral, the gravedigger in particular. I guess by doing this he manages to capture the essence of the american people way better than Breslin, who captures the chaos and his own emotions.
By reading one of these pieces, an fully formed understanding of the impact of Kennedy's death on the american people and country cannot be formed. I feel that you need them both, yet they each tell their own versions in a complete way.
The two pieces on the Kennedy assassinations are vastly different because of their orientation in time and their tone. Peter Hamill's story is a recreation of the event. And through its disorientation and angered-filled prose I feel thrown into it. But the tone is mostly one of immediate reaction, and not remorse, like Breslin's story. In that, the reaction is after the fact, and that puts the consequences and not the immediate emotions in my mind. The contrasting sullen and enraged tones from Breslin and Hamill, respectfully, both show tragedy, but both deal with it at different times. And through these tones, there are numerous political messages, such as the seemingly unimportant corpses-that-aren't-JFK, or Hamill's outbursts towards the U.S. Both are of similar events, and both even get close to hitting the same points. But Hamill's tone is deeply more reactive and emotional than Breslin's, which is equally emotional, but on a more sullen, remorseful level.
Breslin and Hamill’s pieces address the same type of event: the assassination of a Kennedy. Where they differ greatly is their perspective. Hamill wrote from a first-person point of view. As a result, his raw reaction to what is happening – anger, confusion, violence – intensifies how passionate a patriot he becomes throughout the story. This is not an article where the writer can easily be detached from what is written. Hamill’s fervent hatred for the man who assassinated Robert Kennedy brings out the passion he feels as an American and puts him closer to the story. An example of this is when he writes, “Hey Sam: you killed him too. The gun that kid carried was American. The city where he shot down a good man was run by Sam Yorty. How about keeping your fat pigstink mouth shut.”
Breslin’s piece, in contrast, was written from a third-person point of view. The emotions of this story are balanced, calm, reverent and reflective. It lacks the fast-paced frenetic chaos of “Two Minutes to Midnight: The Very Last Hurrah,” and though part of that is obviously because Hamill’s piece was written during and Breslin’s after, a greater part is because it was written without the narrator’s presence. The “characters’” actions and dialogue spoke for themselves, letting this theme of how a presidential assassination impacts the everyday-man come through. When Breslin does make judgments in his piece, they are less emotionally charged as they are in Hamill’s piece, but are just as resonating. This is exemplified in the sentence, “One of the last to serve John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of this country, was a working man who earns $3.01 an hour and said it was an honor to dig the grave.”
The main difference between these two pieces, among many, is the tone. In Breslin’s “It’s an Honor” the tone is straightforward, honest and disconnected. He discusses the burial John F. Kennedy, but instead of focusing on his personal feelings toward the event, he uses the gravedigger as a catalyst. He gives this normally nameless man a face for us to connect with, and chooses to not focus on emphasizing the beloved man being buried.
It took me a couple of reads to figure out what Breslin was attempting by using the gravedigger as the source and tone for the piece. And then I realized he was able to humanize every single character in the piece, including JFK. He uses the tone - sad but optimistic - to portray how Kennedy was able to affect the lives of everyone, even the man who dug his grave, and how the common American is the best person to relay JFK’s story.. I found this technique incredibly moving and the most authentic way to indirectly express the footprint Kennedy left on the world. He also, using Jackie Kennedy’s “head held high” and the gravediggers “honor”, provoked a theme of positivity in the face of death which differed with Hamill’s melancholy ending.
Hamill’s piece - chaotic, fiery and honest in a different way - could not be a more different way to tell the story of Robert Kennedy’s assassination. Heavy with profane dialogue, Hamill’s account was an eye-witness and he told the story exactly as he experienced it. He did not tamper with the events - when he couldn’t remember when Rosy Grier began throttling the gunman - and the dialogue, interactions and sequence was as chaotic as it had been in the moment. He does not attempt to mask the tone as impartial when he was a man ripped apart by witnessing his friend’s murder. His theme emerges toward the end as a disgust in patriotism and disillusionment in his view toward America. This is best shown when he writes, “Nothing would change. Kennedy's death would mean nothing. 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. Just another digit. Nothing would come of it.” He has lost his faith in what he believed, and he was succumbing to bitterness. His tone was dark, jaded and disbelieving.
Both of the pieces are written in a truly honest style; however, the tone in which they tell the stories could not be more opposite.
Post a Comment