Week 4 CYOA responses

Cam and Amanda: "Wonder Town" by Sasha Frere-Jones

I'm always a little anxious to read music reviews or any kind of music journalism because I'm not well-versed in the music-specific language. But Frere-Jones's piece, "Wonder Town", was relatable. He uses creative and easy-to-understand descriptions about their style of music, their albums, and his experience watching them at CBGB in 1986; their notes are "intricate fractions" that don't come from the "world of easy round numbers", and they are "crammed with information." He talks about the sound of the music, that "every guitar was strangely tuned, moaning and howling instead of crunching in satisfying consonance." And in terms of explaining the kind of instruments they were playing: "a serious guitar and an okay one." I like his lack of technicality. Maybe I didn't understand the part where he mentions the guitar chords, but that didn't intrude upon the reading experience.

Frere-Jones admits, in describing the performance at CBGB, that he had no idea what kind of music it was. I didn't read that and think, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about." He talks about it in a way that anybody could understand. His language throughout the piece reflects this, like when he says, "The feeling was a little like being held hostage in a room with someone who refuses to turn on the lights." The way he describes the musicians themselves speak to this as well, I think. He writes that Kim Gorden was "like the lead in a movie who refuses to read from the script"; a less-seasoned musician on stage. I understood the music better through his descriptions of the bandmates.

Frere-Jones complements talk of Sonic Youth's current album with details of and comparisons to their 30-year history. He weaves in information in a subtle way that doesn't disorientate the reader. He says that much of their style has changed since the 80s, giving him the opportunity to delve into the past. He integrates song lyrics from then and now, and lets a band member's anecdote from the 90s speak to the "lengthy, experimental stuff" that characterized that time.

Ellen and Jordan: "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell

I think what most strikes me about this piece is Orwell's voice and the suspense he builds, and how that weaves into the theme of imperialism. He clearly sympathizes with the Burmese and disdains the British imperialists (and himself a little by extension because of the role he plays in the Burmese society), but he also regards the Burmese with contempt for mistreating him. There's a complexity to the author that he develops paragraph by paragraph, and that culminate at the end of the story with the shooting of the elephant. In Orwell's voice I sensed an innocence and a cowardliness, which is especially interesting in this piece because of his (seemingly) imperialistic role. I liked that tension between his inner thoughts and his facade.

And did Orwell actually shoot the elephant--is it not obvious?! Maybe I'm missing something here. He said he shot the elephant. I believe him. Why shouldn't I? But that brings up an interesting discussion about trust and credibility (like Ellen posted on her blog) in narrative journalism. Orwell says he shot the elephant, and I automatically believed him. In writing narrative pieces, we all have to keep in mind that what we write, the readers will take as fact. There's no room for error, really. If Orwell didn't actually shoot the elephant, why should I ever trust his word again?