I struggled a bit with "Access." I think it's one of those pieces that has to be set aside for a bit of time before you can see the way it works. When I read it, I couldn't get a good feel for the piece's structure. There were all kinds of flashbacks cutting in, and the setting changed from country to country without a lot of clear transition. I felt like there wasn't enough explanation in some places (a lot of untranslated words, terms related to the soviet government that I didn't understand, etc.) and too much explanation in others (the beer situation, the train ride). Also, why did he keep talking about the BBC? And what was the ending about?
Things I did like about that piece were the title, which I think really helped me to understand what the article was trying to get at, and the way that Kramer as a character seems very disconnected from all of the people and the happenings around him. He shows the action to us as he perceives it, instead of trying to impose some kind of order to something he himself doesn't completely understand. We really get the sense that he's a traveller going into a confusing situation, and he's bringing us along with him not to preach to us but to have us form our own understandings.
I really got into Joan Didion's "Slouching Towards Bethlehem." In this piece, too, there were a lot of terms that I wasn't familiar with, but you didn't really have to know exactly what such-and-such type of drug is in order to understand the action of the piece. I loved the understated, sometimes potentially mocking or ironic tone (but only if you choose to read it that way). I love the way that she kinds of throws you into the action without really introducing the characters, because you still get a complete sense of who they are just from one quote or one scene that describes them. At times I thought her analysis of the situation was over my head - for example, when she was trying to link the movement to political action, I was a bit lost - but I loved her statement that even though these kids don't believe in words, they are losing themselves because they don't have the right words. I also thought that the ending was a really appropriate and understated way of showing the reverberations that this culture will have on future generations over time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with some of what you said about Kramer. I wasn't necessarily confused by the structure of the piece, but I didn't think it made his story more enjoyable; all those flashbacks and fairly unpronounced transitions make it difficult for the reader to follow the complexity of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI did, however, like his explanations/descriptions of others. They didn't add too much to the story itself in terms of relevant, factual information, but they did make it a more interesting narrative. I enjoyed being able to picture the people he met in my mind's eye.
Thanks for explaining the end of Didion's piece for me. I was so confused by the end, I didn't get why she would include the scene with the "High Kindergartener" or Michael burning himself. I had thought that they detracted from the piece and sort-of took her two steps back in what she was trying to say. But I didn't read it the way you did, with those scenes showing the impact of this 'movement' on future generations. Your reading helps make sense of the inclusion of those scenes.
ReplyDelete