Non-Fictional Prose

Appiah asks us to live together, to familiarize, to understand. We don't have to agree and we don't need to reach a consensus. We just need to appreciate the thoughts and motivations of another perspective.

Talking about "The Path to Paradise" make me think about a graphic narrative by Joe Sacco, a journalist/cartoonist who started illustrating his projects and pieces because he found journalist work less engaging.

As is the basis of many faith and affinity groups, the purpose (or truth, if you will) of the gathering is shared among the participants. The shaheed Berko interviews share similar perspectives and must, in the end, all hold the same idea that it is glorious to die in the service of Allah by eradicating Jews. As Anne and I have been discussing in the comments on my second webpaper, the group-think aspect of shared truth presents a unique set of issues, not the least of which is how to authenticate or validate truths when the only checks/balances are one's compatriots. When we all believe the same thing, we are no longer checking the truth critically but instead accept the common status-quo ideas.

 It was really interesting to read Path to Paradise and get the perspective of the “bad guys” directly after reading the 9/11 graphic adaptation. While I fully support the idea to read these books back to back to compare/contrast them, I thought that Path to Paradise made the point that the cultures of the US and the middle east do not lend themselves well to comparison. The ideologies of the two counties are just too different. On page 54 when the author interviews Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and asks him what the idea behind suicide bombing is, since the bomber is obviously dead after the attack, Yassin responds with the statement that the bomber is not dead, but alive with Allah.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 My overall impression of the 9/11 Report the Graphic Adaptation is that the graphic part of the report removed the sense of formality and seriousness of the issue. I felt that the graphic adaptation was simplified which made me want to read the commission report to get the whole picture.

I was not sure what to get from the color contrast and overall color change of the people. In other words, I was wondering about the choice of color in representing the story of 9/11 and if the color changes would affect the way a reader looks at the narrative.

 Although we agreed in class that the graphic adaptation of the 9/11 Report is not comprehensive, I think that a large part of the writers’ purposes were to simplify the report enough that the average person could read and digest it. If this was the case, it was done well. I was able to better understand the events leading up to 9/11. I think that the images attached more meaning to the event than the Official Commission Report is able to. The anguished faces of the trapped survivors and the devastated stance of the fireman on the cover of the graphic edition both convey an emotional depth that the original commission report is not able to, both because of its medium, and because its sole purpose is to convey information.

 If the 9/11 Commission Report does nothing else it should teach its readers that in order to better combat ourselves against terrorism abroad and in the United States we as a people have to become better educated and informed about who the terrorist are, and in what ways we as a people encourage stereotypes that create environments that are ideal for terrorists to be formed.  I feel that the Official 9/11 Commission Report accomplishes this goal, and after having read selections of the report I felt that I had a better grasp of the backstory to 9/11 and an idea of what the United States could do going forward to prevent another catastrophe.

In our discussions of Tarnation and the Graphic Adaptation of 9/11, we mentioned subjectivity and objectivity, and how one form may be more or less objective than another...

I think we need to be careful when we talk about this. While I think there is a more emotional response when presented with visual images, and while we are going to be reading illustrations in a different way than written prose, I don't know that anything is really objective. 

Everything is edited. Everything is constructed. And we construct everything ourselves, with our interpretations-- and all of it is done with a purpose, realized or not. 

The original 9/11 report faulted inter-agency communication and personnel failures in US intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA. I remember reading numerous articles detailing the bureaucratic mishaps in Washington, but I never quite understood what was really meant by the highly technical and often redundant language used to describe government security functions. However, the graphic adaptation of the 9/11 report was able to crystallize and sharpen my muddled understanding of 'interagency miscommunications' by laying out scenarios, such as the panel on page 40 in which one of the agents agents says "I can't make heads or tails of this" and an FBI agent is shielding documents from the agent from the Justice Department.