Blog 8

Blog 8

The reading that I think most exemplifies the notion of plain but powerful is Breslin’s representation of Kennedy’s funeral. I find this piece emotionally void and the author to be separated completely from the people he is writing about. The piece itself is very plain and Breslin does not give his opinions but it still has a very powerful effect that draws emotion in the reader.

Breslin gives 2 short accounts that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The first is a gravedigger, who is honored to help in burying this deceased president. He gives the details of the special care the man takes to make the gravesite presentable for such an important funeral. Breslin hints at the irrelevancy of the man’s low wage, and the man’s respect and patriotism towards the memory of his president.

The second story centers around the widowed Jacqueline Kennedy. He describes her strength in plain words. For example, Breslin says, “She walked past silent people who strained to see her and then, seeing her, dropped their heads and put their hands over their eyes. She walked with tight steps and her head was high and she followed the body of her murdered husband through the streets of Washington.” There is no excessive detail in this sentence. There is no description of sobbing Americans or their emotions because it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. The piece is a series of short unembellished descriptions. But the descriptions are powerful. The quote gives the reader an idea of Kennedy’s strength and the respect she is receiving from the onlookers.

Both simply written stories serve to show ideas of strength, patriotism, and respect. The gravedigger had feelings of honor, even with a low wage, to have been a part in the president’s funeral. Then, we see Jacqueline Kennedy’s strength even when she has to bear the burden on loneliness and loss.

Another line I find simple yet powerful in when Breslin states, “In front of the grave, Lyndon Johnson kept his head turned to his right. He is President and he had to remain composed.” This sentence is very simple. Yet the thoughts that come of it are emotionally provoking. You know that to not even to be able to bear to look at the casket in the fear the a grown man, and the president of the United States, would break down into uncontrollable tears is heart-breaking. Overall, this piece was the most powerful despite its lack of long-winded details.

            The excerpt from Tom Wolfe seemed to be the most detailed and wordy piece we read this week. And personally, it took me forever to get through this whole book when I read it a few years ago. The book itself is loosely written and Wolfe explores “grok style” by using hippie lingo and ideas as his writing style. Wolfe seems to understand the “on the bus” notion and “wailing with it” which are both prominent themes throughout the entire book. He identifies with the pranksters and I often questioned if he rode on the bus with them. Wolfe at times is omniscient, describing not only the situation, but also internal thoughts and feelings of the pranksters. There are parts of this except that are so utterly pumped with details that you forget where the story is even going. For example the following quote is incredibly detailed but has no real purpose.

            “…the fabulous love bunk-synch- can see that sleeping bag veritably filling up with sperm, the little devils swimming like mad in there in the muck, oozing into the cheap hairy shit they quilt the bag with, millions billions trillions of them, darting around, crafty little flagellants, looking to score, which is natural, if any certified virgin on the face of the earth crawled into that sleeping bag for a nap after lunch she would be hulking knowed-up mirage inside of three minute.”

            I think the reader gets the idea of the use for the sleeping bag bed after saying “love bunk” but Wolfe goes on to describe it with this detailed anecdote like he does many other things in this book. His detailed anecdotes make the book over 400 pages long. This particular excerpt from the book did not strike me as powerful. However, I do not think that was the intention. Overall, I see this piece to be quite opposite of Breslin’s and also of Greene’s. Although Greene interjects himself into his writing, he is much more distanced that Wolfe. Breslin seems to be the opposite of Wolfe’s “grok” style is not trying to share the ideas and identify with his characters, just simply describe. 

            In Greene’s portrait of Connery he describes his fears on needles and his doctors visits for injuries. Why does he highlight Connery’s weaknesses when he holds Connery is such high regard as the ultimate James Bond?