Mary Rogan on Josef Penninger

It's not often that we study the work of a classmates parent in class. In fact, I don't recall ever doing that before. It certainly does not detract from the article, however.
Ms. Rogan's sources are well chosen, and she makes the most of each of them. She appears to be tenacious in her pursuance of sources close to her subject, even travelling to Austria to speak with Mr. Josef Penninger's family, and some of his early teachers. She does not, however, appear to do this in an intrusive or rude way. That is critical when doing pieces like this. As demonstrated in the previous article of hers that we read, "Acts of Faith", she goes to great length to ensure that she is on good terms with the Dueck family, including buying Tyrel a t-shirt, and taking his mother and sister out to get their hair done. One could easily see her maintaining a friendship with those in her article for years after her work had been published. Although her article on Josef Penninger does not explicitly state that she used the same "tactics" with her sources for this article, it is probably safe to assume that she did.
For example, during her visit to Austria, she visits Penninger's mother, who lives in a hospital after being disabled by a stroke. She gained no information about Penninger's work from this episode, or really about Penninger himself, as his mother could not speak. But she was allowed a chance to look into Josef's life, and into the life of his family - a chance which she must have earned through kindness and trustworthyness. No one let's just any reporter visit their near vegetated mother/wife.
She also has the ability to look past what her sources are saying, see into them as people, look at their character. She does this with Penninger's mentor, Tak Mak, and also with both of Penninger's old teachers in Austria.
When Mr. Mak questions Ms. Rogan's reasons for doing the article on Penninger, at first she suspects jealousy, but she then discovers that Mr. Mak has had bad experiences with reporters in the past, and doesn't want Penninger to go through the same thing. When leaving her interview with Seitel, Ms. Rogan had the impression that speaking to her may only bring bad things for Penninger's old physics teacher. Probably true, seeing as the vice-principal was translating for them. And finally, she is able to tell that "Herr Teacher" is talking out his arse when he tells her that "he always saw something special in Josef." Her hunch was proved true when Josef laughed and told her that this was the same teacher who told his parents he'd never amount to anything more than a farmer.
Rogan's diction is the key part of her article, however. She is able to take extremely complex scientific ideas and processes and make them understandable to her readers. She uses the fantastic metaphor of a bicycle going downhill to describe Penninger's life, the rate at which he travels being relative to the impact his discoveries are making on science, and on human life. And he only gets faster and faster.
Interestingly, her language is a little more "uncouth" that one would expect in this type of article, but it doesn't detract from the article in my opinion. She just appears to be forcefully asserting her claim that Penninger is the greatest scientist of our time, and will save the world - again. Besides, swearing is a part of the English language, and I don't think anyone should be afraid of it.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable, well written article, on a fascinating topic.

Sedaris v.s. MacLean

David Sedaris' "SantaLand Diaries" and Stuart McLean's "Polly Anderson's Christmas Party" are perfect examples of two different styles of comedic writing. The fundamental differences between the two pieces lie in what is said, and how it is said.
Sedaris' humour comes from his descriptions. He makes his readers laugh by describing events and details in a very straight forward, matter of fact way. For example, "I tend to avoid leaflets, but it breaks my heart to see a grown man dressed as a taco." For whatever reason, just saying things as they are is funny. And Sedaris is good at that.
There are funny things that happen to him as well, such as being told "Congratulations, Mr. Sedaris. You are an elf." Of course, many of the things that happen to him in SantaLand are quite surreal, and therefore prime comedic material, but it's Sedaris' ability to describe details humourously that makes him a right cracker of a comedian.
McLean's humour, on the other hand, comes from the events in his stories. Usually, everything goes stupendously wrong from the very start for his protagonists. For example, Dave in "Polly Anderson's Christmas Party" starts the story off by receiving his drivers license renewed, but there's a hitch, of course: it says he needs to wear glasses, however he's never worn them in his life. That sets the stage for the Christmas party to spiral out of control. It finishes with Dave being pulled over while driving Bernie Schellenberger and his baby around in order to put the baby to sleep. Dave, however, obviously doesn't have his glasses, but he does have his drunk, bloodied, mono-shoed, and coatless son in the back, who proceeds to give the cop a hard time.
McLean's descriptions are far less direct, even bordering on poetic at times. For example, this funny section of poetic language uses a long metaphor, and appears towards the beginning of the story: "The star in his stomach was burning brightly now. Ahh, thought Dave, I know the name of the galaxy. It's the galaxy of bureaucratic misfortune - an abyss of swamps and labyrinths, a horror house of tunnels and mazes."
In short, McLean's humour comes from what is said, and Sedaris' humour comes from how it's said. Both, however, are absolutely hilarious, and thoroughly enjoyable to read.

Acts of Faith

The issue of Faith v.s. Science is a perennial cringe-topic in almost every forum, but it gets the nervous looks flying fastest when it is raised with relation to medical care. People just don't want to talk about it. Mary Rogan, however, fears not the sensitive issues.
Her article tells the story of the Dueck family of Martensville, Saskatchewan. 13 year-old Tyrell Dueck and his parents, Tim and Yvonne, were referred to the Cancer Centre at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon by their family docor, who felt that Tyrell may have cancer. Upon receiving the news, rather than do what any normal parents would do - rush their child into hospital for an immediate diagnoses - Tim and Yvonne spent weeks researching alternative treatments, without even knowing for sure whether or not Tyrell had cancer. It was not until the Cancer Centre at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon called and asked them to bring their son in that they did so.
Tyrell Duecks was then diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma, a fatal and fast growing form of bone cancer.
After this diagnoses, things went downhill. His parents refused to let him have chemotherapy, partly because of chemotherapy's side-effects and the required amputation, and partly because of their religion. This resulted in a court case that gave the Provincial government guardianship over Tyrell, solely for the purpose of medical consent. Tyrell then spoke up, saying that he didn't want the treatment - more court cases, media coverage, and inaction with regards to Tyrell's medical condition ensued.
By the time it was all over, the doctors said that Tyrell's cancer had spread. His parents were now free to do what they wanted. They chose American Biologics, an alternative care facility in Tijuana, Mexico, that provides treatment that is illegal in the US and Canada.
Upon Tyrell's return to Canada the following year, his parents made it public that his condition had improved. He subsequently died on June 30th, 1999, at the age of 13.
In my opinion, if somebody refuses medical treatment for themselves, that's there choice. However, if they refuse medical treatment for minors in their custody, that is unaccetpable. This article, along with other cases, gives substantial evidence against the effectiveness of alternative treatments, and anyone who refuses a child the proven medical treatments available to them, for whatever reason, does not deserve to have custody of that child. End of story.

Alaskans Speak in a Frightened Whisper ... no freakin' wonder!

Charley James' article, which exposes Alaskan Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin as The Wicked Witch of the North, came not as a surprise but rather a confirmation of popular belief. It makes sense that the woman who so spectacularly stupified Katie Couric and her viewers actually believed in what she was spewing. However, that only makes it more pathetic - and scary. How can she have come this far in life, let alone politics, if she holds racist beliefs on top of being unable to answer a question? What kind of voter would support a candidate like that? And perhaps more frequently asked, what kind of candidate would choose a running-mate with those beliefs and a lack of knowledge and common sense?
James' article in the Los Angeles Progressive effectively conveys to the reader the Third-Reich-esque beliefs that came so close to being the dominate views in the Oval Office. His opening quotation is perhaps the most poignant: "So Sambo beat the bitch!" she exclaimed to colleagues, in public, after Obama's victory over Hilary Clinton in the race for Democratic Party presidential nominee. She seems to be a master at offending racial and gender groups two at a time. Blacks and Women with her Sambo/Bitch remark. Arabs and the Inuit with her frequent referral to the Alaskan aboriginal group as "Arctic Arabs".
All that's "the tip of the iceberg" James' says in his article. Attempted book burnings, harassment of city officials during her reign as mayor, hugely irresponsible spending, and just general stupidity have plagued every office Palin has ever held, as a direct result of her being there.
Quite frankly, the fact that she had a loyal following among Republicans is frightening. That means that there's a percentage of people in the US that think it's ok to name your kid Trig. That alone is scary. Fortunately, cooler, more intelligent heads prevailed, and she has been stripped of any hope of a political career. Let's hope Republicans don't get the idea in their heads that she'd be a good candidate in four years time. If she doesn't realize that Saturday Night Live is making a joke out of her, and the whole world is laughing, how do they think she'll do when she has to deal with the global economic crisis? Perhaps if she laughs it off and appears on CNN Marketwatch a few times, the whole problem will go away. Not likely.
All I can say is thank God for keeping us away from that disaster.

Obama v.s. McCain - Oratorial Prowess

On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, the two dominant figures in American and international politics over the past eighteen months each made speeches accepting their fates as decided by the American electorate. Republican presidential candidate John McCain made his concession speech to a crowd of upset supporters in his home state of Arizona, while the new President-Elect, Barack Obama, made his monumental acceptance speech to a titanic and emotional crowd in Chicago. Although both speeches were superbly crafted, Obama's will likely trancsend the ranks of average political performances, and land a place in the Oratorial Hall of Fame.
There were some similarities between the two men's speeches. For example, both made reference to historical events, especially pertaining to the struggle of African-Americans over the past century. McCain cited the example of Booker T. Washington, the first African-American to be invited to the White House, while Obama chose to mention 106 year old Ann Nixon Cooper. Obama also made several other more poetic and subtle historical references throughout his speech, such as his use of "calloused hands".
The structure of the speeches was also similar, despite being of different lengths. Both included historical references, brief comments on the campaign, discussion of the future, time for thank-you's, and mention of speaking with the other candidate after learning of the result.
There were also some differences between the speeches, apart from the obvious fact that Obama's speech was in acceptance of the presidency, and McCain's was not. Both speeches included time for thank-you's to family, friends and campaign personel, however, Obama took a minimal amount of time for that portion of his speech, choosing to deal with other issues, mainly the road that now lies ahead of him, and ahead of America.
McCain left more time for thank-you's, and even branched off, briefly talking about the role of families and friends in the campaign.
In the end, both were excellently crafted speeches, and delivered powerful messages to their intended audiences. Whether or not the audiences listen is another matter entirely.

Narrative Drive

Part of a writer's job is to drive the narrative of his story through to the end, keeping the readers interested all the while. Authors J.D. Salinger and Russell Smith are both incredibley effective at this.

In Smith's short story "Home", the drive is initiated in the first sentence, "What you have to do is escape your family." Immediately, this makes the reader curious as to what this story is about. Is it about growing up? Leaving home? Dealing with parental issues?
The answer is revealed gradually throughout the rest of his story. It becomes apparent that the main character ("you", in this case, as this story is written, unusually, in the second person) is visiting home after being away at university. The story details the subdued chaos of a familiar bar on a friday night in the holiday season.
A female character is introduced, whom "you" find attractive. She makes two or three appearances throughout the night, adding depth and forward motion to the plot, making us want to know if "you" will make a move, although suspecting that "you" won't.
In between the scenes with this girl, the narrative is driven forward by old friends catching up on each others lives. We find out a little bit about other characters throughout the night, as well as about the bar the story takes place in, which keeps us interested.
After the bar-fight climax, "you" make a connection with the choker-art-college girl, smiling at each other across the street. This brings closure to the girl's part of the narrative, as well as the story, which is supposed to seem warm and familiar to us.

J.D. Salinger's "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" takes on a darker mood. It describes the last vacation of Seymour and Muriel, a young couple whose relationship has been unfortunately altered by Seymour's post traumatic stress syndrome after his war time experience.
The narrative is set rolling by the many references in Muriel's conversation with her mother, to Seymour's odd behaviour. Something about driving and trees, and something about what Seymour tried to do with granny's chair are mentioned to peak the readers curiousity in the mental health of Seymour's character. Those vague reference give us something to grab on to and want to know more about, so we keep reading.
In the second section, we are kept wondering what exactly is going on by the seemingly normal behaviour which Seymour exhibits while around Sybil. Only towards the end of this section does he become increasingly creepy, kissing Sybil's feet, and making her jealous, talking about another child. The narrative is driven forward as the reader wonders whether or not Seymour will make a giant faux pas with Sybil, or whether he will be normal. The foot kissing incident seals the deal.
In the third section, Seymour shows his true "shell shocked" colours, giving a woman in the elevator a hard time for looking at his feet. Readers are yet again thrown a curve ball by this sudden reversal in his behaviour. We now know that he is very mentally unstable, and are curious to see what his next move will be. Knowing that he has overstepped the boundary with Sybil, and with a reduced sense of judegment, he gets a gun out of his bag, walks over to his wife on the bed, and kills himself. The act of walking to his wife's bed makes it seem at first as if he will kill her, perhaps then abducting Sybil, but in the last line of the story, it is revealed that Seymour deals himself the fatal shot instead.

Why Crime Fiction Is Good For You

In Ian Rankin's piece "Why Crime Fiction Is Good Ior You", he outlines a number of important points to consider when writing or reading crime fiction. Most importantly, he states that the main ingredients of crime fiction are violence, sudden reversals, mystery, deception, and moral dilemma, among others. He also makes clear that crime fiction is not meant to be real life. For example, Ranking claims that crime fiction death "never happens without a reason and the causes of death never goes unpunished," whereas with real life death, "we never know what killed off our happiness". He also says that crime fiction is the perfect tool for the dissection of society, allowing writers to tackle darker issues, such as corruption, exploitation, child abuse, violence, murder, jealousy, and revenge. "It enters into dangerous territory ... and so stirs up emotional responses we might not otherwise feel." Rankin believes that the true spirit of the crime novel, whether or not the reader realizes it, is anarchic, and fits the definition of satire as well.
Relating what Rankin has just said about crime writing to some of his own works, we find that he most definitely adheres to his own principles. In his short story, "The Hanged Man", Rankin includes multiple sudden reversals, as well as mystery, deception, moral dilemma, and violence.
The violence comes in the protagonists description of his past murders, rather than an account of the on he has just been sent to carry out.
The first sudden reversal occurs when Mort gives up control of the conversation with Gypsy Rosa. She then has some power over him. Another come when Mort finds out Gypsy Rosa is his mother. Not only does it reverse his feelings towards her, but it reverses his feelings towards his father/boss. Mort says "I'll kill him," meaning that he'll kill the opposite person than he was supposed to.
Mystery is brought into the story in a number of ways. We never get to know the protagonists real name, as well as the relationship he has with his father and recently-discovered mother. We don't learn much about the father either, apart from the fact that he is someone everybody fears, and that he raped Mort's mother. It is kept from us that Mort is actually Gypsy Rosa's son, right till the end.
Mort's father deceived him by trying to trick him into killing his mother, but the plan backfired. Now Mort is facing a moral dilemma, as to whether or not kill his mother and/or his father. He was tasked to kill his mother, but the "tasker" was his father, while his mother has just revealed to him his true past, and he is reeling in the truth of the moment.