The Blood, Sweat, Tears and Joy of Writing
Although writing can sometimes seem easy to some people I can truly say that it is not simple. There is much complexity involved in writing something good and tangible. There is also a feeling of great accomplishment when you write something that you know can reach a wide audience. I had the pleasure of reading two different authors writing styles and techniques. Both of these authors displayed their works in different forms. Josh Neufeld illustrated his writings in a graphic novel form (a comic) and Tom Junod presented his writings in the form of an article. Even though both used very different mediums that distinguished one from the other, their issues were very similar. They both felt compelled to write about a disaster in our American history and provided us with a glimpse of how these disasters affected not only the victims but the general publics and the media’s perception of both the events and the victims. Neufeld’s disaster was a natural disaster that left its victims feeling neglected, forgotten or even purposely discriminated against. Junod’s disaster was a manmade disaster that counted among its victims not only those who died or were seriously injured but an entire nation that was shaken to its very core by the unexpectedness and the audacity of the event. Each event is viewed from a historical perspective that is shaped by human nature and American culture.
These events caused people to re-examine some part of their existence that had always been taken for granted as an American. Neufeld’s comic illustrates the confusion and disgust of the people that were victims of hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath of the disaster his story speaks for the victims and asks his audience to identify with the victims. Junod’s article takes an iconic image from 9/11 and gives his readers a glimpse into the publics and the media’s response to the image while at the same time trying to identify the man in the image. Junod asks his audience to see past censorship of the image. Instead the audience should see the image as a reflection of our individual freedom. The other commonality that these writers share is the way they wanted to change our perceptions of how we view these disasters. Also they demonstrated to me how persuasive writing can be. I feel that I learned a lot about writing technique.
Neufeld’s argument was so persuasive that it made me very angry at our government official’s inability to manage the relief effort following the disaster. In order to persuade my readers that they too should feel this way I chose quotes from Neufeld’s characters in the comic that I felt highlighted the increasing anger and disgust the victims felt. I also made sure to interpret the colors used along with a description of certain panels to make the readers understand Neufeld’s point of view in relation to mine. This allowed me to make sure my readers understood the disgust and desperation of the victims. As for Junod’s article, I very much liked the way he took a photograph of a terrible tragedy in progress, a photo that initially was seen as too raw, too painful to view and he asked us to look at it again and to remember it. Even though he released his article about two years after 9/11 he was still courageous enough to make a statement regarding the jumpers of 9/11, an overwhelming and controversial topic ‘til this day. He wanted us to remember them as heroes, not a dirty little secret that America should sweep under the rug. I agree with his argument and thought that it would be good for me to pass this on to my readers. In order to do this I had to highlight the points of view collected by Junod of the media, the public and the families involved in his article. This was the only way for me to display the incorporated deniability with regards to the jumpers. Through the use of a plain writing style of my own and citing examples of the writers’ quotes, I was able to connect my audience with what the two authors had written had written and was able to use their quotes as evidence for my audience. In my interpretive essays on these two subjects, I thought it would be best for the audience to understand my point of view with each of the writers’ points of view as well as my interpretation of them.
What I did with Neufeld was first decide what panels and quotes that I wanted to use. I wanted to make sure to use those that would strengthen my argument. This supports my point of view especially when the evidence I use coincides with the points that I want to make in my argument. I needed my audience to know what Neufeld illustrated in his comic. This is the key to making an emotional appeal to my audience. I used my summaries of his panels to explain my interpretations in the best detail possible:
“The comic starts with how grotesque the convention center was by a panel showing us our female character (let’s just call her F.C.) entering a ladies restroom with urine, feces and toilet paper all over the floor and sludge and grime everywhere, not to mention an odd looking woman in the middle of the restroom (not in a stall) squatting with her pants down ‘taking care of business’” (Ferreira 2).
After writing this I knew the first thing my readers would think is, “Eeeeww!” This definitely ensured that I had my audience’s attention. Then after summarizing the scene of the panel I would interpret what the scene means to me:
“This is a very fast ‘attention getter’ in this comic and definitely points out the disgusting conditions in which the refugees were left to survive in” (Ferreira 2).
All I had to do after this was blend in my point of view with Neufeld’s point of view in order to strengthen the evidence I had presented:
“The comic is illustrated in a pale yellow hue used for most of the characters and their surroundings. This is contrasted with a reddish-brown hue used to shadow or outline the characters and surroundings. Neufeld used these colors throughout his comic strip to cast pallor over these scenes that would not have the same emotional impact in plain black and white. It is a stagnating, sickish feeling that Neufeld wants to convey to his audience that sets the tone for a feeling of disgust and despair for the conditions in the convention center.”
Since Junod only used one photograph and wrote about it in the form of an article, I had to slightly change my technique by first summarizing his article and then using quotes to establish emotional appeal as well as strengthen the arguments of my interpretation. With Junod this tactic became a little more difficult. Mainly because there was so much to his article that I had to sift through it repeatedly in order to discover what would work best when interpreting his article. The problem was some of things that I would have liked to use could have invalidated my evidence or drawn attention away from my goal of convincing my audience that they too should look and remember. I had to be very careful on what I could use and also how I should display it. For example:
“One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman’s body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph – the redemptive tableau – of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world” (Junod 71).
If I had used this quote from Junod I was afraid my audience would struggle over the same questions that I struggled with as I read this quote, such as, remembering the priest as a martyr. Why? Did everyone forget that he killed another person by jumping? And why did they forget? Is it because he was a priest? Was this priest a part of a religion that condemns suicide as a great sin? And why is it that he should have more recognition than the Falling Man or any other jumper for that matter? I felt that some people might question my intentions if I posed these questions. Would my readers react as though I were attacking ‘the church’ or something? I did not want my readers too focused on religious arguments. I wanted them to think more about the Falling Man.
Both of these writers had influenced me on how writing can be a complexity to enjoy. Sure you have to deal with the paper cuts (the Blood), the deadlines (the Sweat), and the frustrations when what you wrote at first doesn’t come out right (the Tears). However, when you write something that can persuade a person to open their minds to new points of view or different concepts, well… that is a ball of sunshine that will never go away (the Joy).
Works Cited
Neufeld, Josh. “A.D. New Orleans After the Deluge.” First Year Composition Reader. Boston: Pearson, 2011. Print. 215-237.
Tom Junod, “The Falling Man.” First Year Composition Reader. Boston: Pearson, 2011. Print. 69-80.
Ferreira, Carlos. “Interpretations of ‘A.D. New Orleans After the Deluge’ by Josh Neufeld.”
Ferreira Carlos. “Interpretive Essay of ‘The Falling Man’ by Tom Junod.”
Ferreira, Carlos. “Working with Direct Quotes and Paraphrases While Interpreting: The Falling Man, by Tom Junod.” From My Finger Tips. Blogspot.com. 10 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
