Readings for tuesday- Amber Cleave

O.K. There are many similarities between the articles that we read for tomorrow. The things I have noticed are 1. They discuss family background and upbringing, often quoting from family members. 2. articles follow the profile through their careers, noting failed careers and past jobs. 3. The articles use quotes from other people who know the subjects well, and add to the sense of a person. 4. Jokes and skits are used to give a sense of a person and their outward personality. 5. There is often a controversy about the person or their career, and this is highlighted by given two sides or opinions of the subject. 6. The end of the article is a quote by the profile which sums up the person, their view on life, or their main personality. This quote leaves the reader with the essence of the profile. 7. The articles all use block paragraphs and the paragraphs aren't too long. The one sentence paragraphs really stick out, though, and convey something important or intimate about the person. 8. Also noted, these articles are all hilarious. I was laughing as I read them. The articles are funny because the subjects are funny, but the Simpson's article on Meyer is slightly more serious because the content of Meyer himself is more serious. This article I feel is the most effective because, although still funny, I think it conveys a more personal, out of the box view of Meyer. It describes his discontent and perfectionism which follows him throughout his life. This is the kind of thing that not everyone would know about him, or even expect. It is shocking and comforting at the same time. In a way, it reminded me of Lincoln's Melancholy.

Comments

[Albert Pfaffman]

Well... I'm not quite of the same mind that these pieces were hilarious. Maybe that's my fault? I read these pieces more as lessons for Trivial Pursuit, rather than rolicking comedy. And that piece on Silverman had me a little confused. Her jokes didn't translate well at all to paper, and in what seems to be an attempt the writer admits this. The implicit understanding that "we've got to see her to appreciate her" tends to make me feel like this is a piece of fan literatureTongue in cheek at many points, but the Sarah Silverman piece left me feeling ei

I didn't see the hilarity, but maybe that's because I was reading too hard. The piece on Silverman was especially baffling, at least from a structural standpoint. Her jokes didn't translate well at all onto paper. The comedian's trademark delivery and charm are almost totally lost unless she's right in front of us telling the joke herself. Then again, maybe I'm not much of a Sarah Silverman fan. Redemption for the piece instead comes with the author's admission that her jokes do not work well on paper, especially transcribed by someone else outside of Sarah's own context, and suddenly we're reading a strict documentary or biography, and not one that I found especially interesting. We've got her jokes, some of the reasons why she performs the acts she does, a glimpse of her living room, and that's about it. The general vibe I got from the author of this piece was something like, "Sorry, I tried my best."

Random observation, and a topic that's been discussed in my LJ21 class, but not here. At least I don't think so. I don't think we've discussed the issue of first and third person narrative in this class. Amy, in LJ 21, feels that first person narrative should generally be avoided, and after reading the piece on Larry David, I at least see a way in which I feel it's executed poorly. There are very few references to the author himself in this piece, and the majority of it is written in the third person. Every seven or eight paragraphs or so, the author will drop a landmine (I say this because the sudden inclusion of his own perspective is abrupt and invasive) and relate the experience to himself. I almost feel like it would have been better to make this piece declaratively first person, rather than trying to mute the first person voice by swamping it with tons of third person detail. This feels like a third person narrative that has been compromised by some editing slip ups and referrals to the writer's own voice. The piece doesn't even end with the author, instead with a vignette of Larry David in the editing room. Unlike the Meyer piece, in which the author had a direct relationship with the subject (at least it is declared and therefore warranted), we don't really get much of an idea of who the author is, yet he's important enough to bring up in two or three jarring sentences in the narrative?

[Albert Pfaffman]

Oops. I forgot to delete that first paragraph.