At first, I thought that Wolfe would epitomize the type of writing that Breslin talks about. Wolfe's content can't be too hard to follow, right? But as I looked back over the readings, I realized Wolfe was the most complicated of the four. Capote was simple- simply put, simply stated, generally simple to understand. Breslin and Greene are just as simple as Capote. They are a little less rigid and more conversational and personal than Capote but still don't really put airs on their writing; when they say something, they say it. But of these writers, I feel that Greene's writing most portrays what Breslin meant. This has to do partly with the words he uses but also subject matter.
Breslin writes about death and honor and an emotional time historically that some younger audiences may not understand or be able to relate to. Capote writes simply but about gruesome death and more intense matter. Greene writes about a hero, his hero, the chance he gets to meet him, and finds that he is just a man as well. I think that this is a situation that most people can understand. His narrative takes on a nostalgic, almost child-like quality with his admiration for Connery. Even when Connery admits being afraid of needles, I still get the feeling that that doesn't diminish the respect Greene has for him. The naive reverie that Greene writes about happens to most people and we are able to associate with him as he draws us into that experience- both with his simplistic language and subject matter.
After a second look at Wolfe's writing, subject and style aside, I realized the words he used were not as well known and required a little more leg work to understand what he meant. "There was no more reason for them to remain in isolation while the ovoid eyes of La Honda suppurated" (172). There is a much more simple way to put this statement, and the same for this: "The befuddled citizens could only see the outward manifestations of the incredible stuff going on inside their skulls" (176).
Wolfe's subject (a bunch of hippies on a road trip, constantly abusing and using drugs) tricked me into thinking the reading would be simple- the language/vocab would be simple, even if the narrative was harder to follow. (If it was a bunch of drug-induced memories then how could that really make sense to anyone else?) But Wolfe keeps the narrative flowing and relative to his readers by making the story (mostly) logical and entertaining.
In a way, Wolfe's writing with elevated vocabulary in such an altered mental state works best. He keeps the reader guessing and second guessing with the way he weaves the tale and the words- I think I understand what he means but there's always a little bit of me that wonders if that was really the point and if I truly understand. But in the experiences that Wolfe describes, is there really a way to KNOW? Can drugged-out people writing about being drugged out KNOW? By continually second guessing if I really understand what I'm reading, I almost feel connected to the drugs; there's no way to really KNOW, and as long as I'm still flowing and following and trying, I'm getting what I need.
Question: Did anyone else in class have this experience with Wolfe? I feel that a lot of my feelings in this post were very generalized, especially with Wolfe's writing. Did anyone else feel that they were following a wild goose throughout the reading, and you do think that's the intended purpose?