Enny Van - Predilections

Like I had said in class, this piece was by far the best piece I have read. A while back there had been discussion on what to do if you see a writer's style, what could one do to structure their writing in much the same way. Throughout reading the piece I felt like I had many moments of "I love that!" but couldn't quite pinpoint to why I enjoyed it so much. So here I hope to point out a few things I felt about the piece. In hopes that maybe someone else could also "get to the bottom" of it. 1.His first paragraph definitely draws you in to the writer by exemplifying how interesting/weird he is and how these amusements for morris really originates from him in ways which make it seem like these individual stories embody himself in disjointed pieces in the world around him. Kind of that feeling where you find out someone else had thought of the strange things you've pondered about and thought- wow he must be like me! 2.On Pg. 262 with the sentence starting with "An Errol Morris..." His sentence structure mirrors what he is talking about and the way he wants it to be read so I can "experience" what is being said. 3. Robert Ebert comments that Morris either loves his subjects or is extremely cruel to them- I feel that Singer definitely does this with his profile on Morris, I never know if he is poking fun at Morris umemployment, his ups and downs with projects, his academic education...but at the same time I feel like he does this by relishing in all the elements that make up him as a person and as well, a character. Singer allows Morris's quirk to come out and provide us with somewhat a clear picture that can draw us to see Morris like Singer. 4. Singer is able to pull us back by writing on a fragmented timeline, sometimes in reverse, but I had ascribed success to Morris so I know that somehow, someway he will pull through. 5. Finally, Singer's sarcastic tone did not make this piece feel as long as it was. 6.But I also felt like Singer kind of "cheated" - I just felt he picked the ideal subject which of course didn't hurt.

Comments

[Pierce Nahigyan]

It's funny--I understand what you mean about "cheating". With a subject like this, how can you not make a great article?

I liked the brief mention Morris makes about making a documentary about (for the life of me I can't remember what this guy did) the man who spends his life obsessed with useless things. Morris describes it as "disturbingly self-reflective." I think someone else already made mention of the fact that the author is profiling a profiler, but I got the feeling that Singer felt something disturbingly reflective about Morris as well.

It brings me, tangentially, to the theory of Gonzo journalism. What, really, is the best method? Being merely a fly on the wall, getting the best story possible while staying politely out of it, or involving yourself directly, becoming a living portion of the story itself? It's something I'm currently debating. Keen to hear some more thoughts.

[Yao Xu]

I think what really catches my eye in this piece is that fact that though there are so many people with so many stories, I can still remember who these people are and what they did. Compared to the McPhee article "Atchafalaya," which also introduced a lot of poeple, I felt like Morris allowed the readers to connect with the people he profiled in a weird way while, it may be the time period or the event, but I could not feel a connection to any of the people mentioned in the McPhee article. I guess what made the connection for me in the Morris piece was that though the people were strange, I believed that there are atcual people like that in the world and the "uncut" method of recording made me realize that I, like everyone else, will contradict myself at times when I have talked long enough because I grow comfortable with whomever I'm talking to or I just realized that what I said earlier was wrong. I like the Morris piece, I felt the humor and the frustration during the court case.