Cynthia Ozick's "What Helen Keller Saw" was basically a brief profile of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan, with parts about other significant figures in Keller's life but the main focus remaining on Helen Keller. The piece raised many questions about the way history views Keller, calling into question her authenticity on several accounts. I found this interesting because I have never heard any of the accusations mentioned in Ozick's essay, like the charge of plagiarism concerning her story about fairies. Ozick seemed to be defending Helen Keller in most cases, but for me personally, all the essay did was raise many questions about Helen Keller that weren't directly answered in the end.
Chapter Nine of the textbook, "Interviewing," was a short instructional piece on the process of interviewing for creative nonfiction. I found most of it common knowledge, though I was surprised to read that most journalists don't use recorders or take verbatim notes.
The excerpt from Steve Almond's <i>Candyfreak</i> was a bit hard for me to follow. I did enjoy the author's style, and I thought it had a few idiosyncratic details that made it interesting (like the narrator's losing his driver's license at the start of the trip), but overall I think it is difficult to become and remain enthused about unless you have a particular interest in candy or the behind-the-scenes life of small name candy-making. It felt like watching an episode of Food Network's "Unwrapped," which is an interesting show to turn on for background noise and the occasional "huh, that's neat," but not something most people would watch on the edges of their seats.
No comments:
Post a Comment