I found myself clapping at the end when Worth said Attora was “supervising repairs on a power line that would probably be blown up again tomorrow.” It was hilarious, pithy, and stuck at the heart of what the piece was about. The uncertain, elusive, and complex nature of the Aleppo conflict and the state of Syria after its fall. One could read it as a statement of futile endeavors. Or as a statement of daring hope? Structurally, though, I aspire to an ending similar to this that captures the essence of my piece and allows the reader to leave with an anchoring statement that summarizes the piece.
Worth’s comparison: that Attora’s face looked like “Albert Camus’s might have if he lived a decade longer”, was reminiscent of McPhee’s comments on frame of reference. I don’t know what Albert Camus looks like, but I suppose the preceding details repay the borrowed vividness. McPhee tends to be a bit random and only tells you what he means at the end. I was confused for the longest time as to what he meant by frame of reference. As he talked about random moments where people weren’t getting his references because of different times, or when students used niche references, it all only comes together at the very end, and you’re like That’s what he’s doing. Maybe he’s breaking the rules of structure and loves to leave his readers confused for as long as possible.
The TIME lede was a pretty novel style. It started straight in your face with the models being used before taking a step back to explain the context. I resonate with the piece of SiSi because I, too, am taking the approach of a single main character whose journey exemplifies a dynamic. From there, the work can be a commendatory and meaningful discussion on an aspect of society. The emphasis on really drawing on expert insights on a topic that you’re going into without knowledge is definitely a takeaway, as I conduct two expert interviews this week.
