TOW #16 - The Fervent Years (IRB Post 2)

The Fervent Years is different. It appeals to those who care about the subject matter, but if you are not looking for the information, you don't want it. The book second half delves into the details of the work with group theater. How it operated, how the people worked, and eventually, its end. 

Clurman continues to be wordy in the latter parts of his book. Although at times it is appreciated. When writing, Clurman will never let you feel as though you've missed something. This very strategy parallels the ideas that follow his subject and it does not go unnoticed. As the book went on the seemingly unneeded word on a page turned into stories, and the novel-esque personality that Clurman's writing takes on is appreciated. 

Previously I discussed how the confusion may have been because of Clurman's mixture between the facts and personal anecdotes. However, the two-wonge approach proved to be important by the end. He was discussing more than just an element of theater history, he was revealing history itself in the 1930s. His end purpose, to explain the importance of group theater's rise and fall, was achieved because of his intertwining of his personal growths, as well as those in the field. 

Clurman uses an abundance of examples to support his ideas. While not totally necessary, as he has built in credibility, the use of evidentiary support really adds to his ideas. He constantly name drops, though maybe they are just his friends and colleagues, at times it clear the Clurman uses their credentials to support what he wants the reader to understand. Clurman also references plenty of journals that reviewed shows and plays themselves in order to effectively communicate his message. 

An important part of how Clurman explains his process is how he lays out the entire book. It is written in six parts, each capturing an element of what Clurman wishes the reader to leave with. One pivotal piece was the "Farewell to the Thirties". This portion acted as the "fall" of the plot, as many fictional readers would describe what follows the main ideas. Clurman is sure to cover the time period from start to finish as a way to make his book the one to go to if you are curious about the thirties. 

TOW #15 (Written) I am Not Charlie

Following the shooting in France against the journalists at Charlie Hebdo, the phrase "Je suis Charlie" has been circulating. In english this translates to, "I am Charlie". However, David Brooks, writer for the New York Times, delves into why people should be careful not to utilize the trending saying. Through his arrangement and word choice, Brooks creates an effective argument and voices his unpopular opinion.

Brooks begins with a succinct current state of the situation writing how the journalists, "are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression". He is able to separate his opinion from something positive that is seen in the situation. He also recognizes his audience and doesn't go into detail about the current event, he just assumes his reader is aware. Brooks continues to explain that while the journalists were free to speak as they did, it never would've flown in America. Following such a grand claim, Brooks gives countless evidentiary support to the idea that just because someone is in favor of free speech, doesn't mean what they are saying is right. 

Brooks continues very casually writing, "So, this may be a teachable moment." He beings to propose his idea of what needs change, as he has already established that he is indeed in favor of free speech. His casual tone dies, however, when he writes, "When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs." The indirect comparison between the writers at Charlie Hedbo and young teenagers is not a very kind one. He uses this newly proposed idea to explain that everything has a place and to not simply lionize something simply because it has been attacked. 

Brooks concludes his piece with a  very clear message, "The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating." Brooks has made it very clear that he is most definitely not Charlie.