As sternly as I opposed the McCains during the election, this interview didn't necessarily trigger the polarizing feelings usually accompanied with writings about political figures. How did Levy manage such a thing? I wonder if it was the intermingling of intriguing anecdotes and the pieces of the past that nicely strung together to give the reader a more human portrait of Cindy. But parts of this interview confused me. There were times when I honestly couldn't tell whose side Levy was on. Parts of the interview seemed like an attack or perhaps just took on a more condescending tone that disrupted any kind of sympathy that I begun to feel for the typically stoic-looking woman.
But anyway, for my interview I might consider weaving the background/biographical stuff throughout the piece. I liked the way Levy introduced the background information in places that were the most relevant to the present. It was obvious that she was trying to show a different side of Cindy McCain or at least explain the public's common impression of her. I am just not sure it was always successful.
Alyssa, I was equally confused by the same parts of the article and still wonder exactly Levy was going for. I wonder if Levy makes us feel sympathetic towards Cindy so that we blame all of her struggles on the life of a politician's wife or on the campaign process itself. Maybe the article is more of an attack on John McCain for neglecting his wife as using her as a political tool. Still not sure what exactly is going on
ReplyDeleteFor presenting a person in writing, I think it is impotant to interweave background,quotes and also the biographical. You mentioned the addiction to the pain killers and what I found interesting there was the idea of her quiting with just a comment of her family. I'm unsure of what confused you but would be interested in hearing about it in class discussion.
ReplyDelete