After reading "Standing By" by David Sedaris, I didn't find it very relevant to every day life, but it was worth reading. I think his purpose for writing "Standing By" was to simply give his perspective on past experiences he has had at the airport. By doing so, it allows potential readers an opportunity to relate in the case that they have shared a similar experience. This, in turn, gets Sedaris some recognition and also a record that he has now attained and therefore must maintain. Now, when he writes other personal encounters, readers will know what to look forward to; a humorous critic rather than a negative author ranting about dreadful situations society already hates as a whole (like going to DMV or the grocery store) and has made enough unfavorable comments about already. As an author, your profession automatically introduces you to taking some of the biggest risks. By writing what you believe is "good writing", you will eventually publish it and get either good or bad exposure. This will determine the rest of your career stand point. The point being, I believe Sedaris wrote this story based on the confidence from his past reviews, ratings and successes. After all, if he was no good at it, which would be clear due to minimal success, he would have stopped writing by now. He also could have wrote it to lighten up the moods of flight attendants, frequent travelers, or anyone else who has to stand in ridiculously long lines, and to provide optimism that is much needed.
The kind of questions Sedaris raises from my point of view is why does he criticize what people wear and don't wear in the airport on pages 276-277? When it's all said and done, that family ends up on one end of the earth and he will end up on another. On a psychological level of thinking, since when was a tie, ribbon, and a straw hat classified as "beautifully dressed"? What was so wrong with the "Freaky Mothafocka", misspelled and all? I believe that is less of a front than the "ribbon and tie". "Freaky Mothafocka" is representing his true self, also letting the world know "although the word on my shirt is publicly misspelled, I am not publicly embarrassed." It should show those walking around the airport judging him to instead realize that life is full of mistakes, and nobody is perfect. The shirt is fun and extremely expressive, and he was not on his way to an interview.
After I read the story, I felt "don't we all have these moments at some point in our lives?". I am sure this is what Sedaris wants us to think. He just wants his readers to relate to resembling situations by using trends in society to his advantage. Right in the beginning, he says, "It was one of those headaches that befall every airline passenger"(Sedaris 275). Right away, readers probably feel obligated to feel or at least try to imagine what it feels like to be stuck on delayed plane trip. It usually brings most people to become depressed and irritated by this kind of situation simply by thinking about it. Then he continues by finding the perfect way the reader can make light of a bad situation as such when all else fails. He persuaded us to focus our attention on what society recognizes as foolishness and proceed to belittle it/them. As strong of an impact as media and advertisement has on society, Sedaris can easily sway his audience to feel what he feels without ever having rode a plane before. Media and advertisement is very trendy and by this I mean it switches up very often when it comes to what's "in" right now. Here, we can go back to my raised question in the paragraph above. Media portrays very "successful people" to wear "ties and ribbons", as if those "successful people" have never used the term "Mothafocka" before. So by portraying the "Freaky Mothafocka" as a weird person (besides the Stevie Wonder braids with beads), why wouldn't he just be an average Joe? Is it because "Mothafocka" is not representing "appropriate"language? So if it's inappropriate in public, why isn't it inappropriate in general, even behind closed doors when the tie or the ribbon comes off at the end of the night? Why not refrain from using the term at all if you are going to judge someone for wearing the word proudly, openly admitting he says it so there are no surprises later. See, media portrays perfection so Sedaris knew that by following the current trend at the time, society would gladly and unconsciously feel his distaste for the "vulgar young man" but greatly appreciate the "catalogue children"(<media/advertisement).
1.) Why do you think the "Freaky Mothafocka" was poorly judged but the "beautifully dressed" grandkids were praised solely by their apparel?
It’s interesting that you think Sedaris’ purpose was to simply tell his story but that later you call him a “humorous critic.” (But not a negative one…?) What do you think is at stake for Sedaris? I think there must be more to his choice to write this than “he’s an author and it’s a topic.” (Those quotes are mine, not yours.)
ReplyDeleteI think your second paragraph is closer to Sedaris’ purpose than the first. And when you say, “He persuaded us to focus our attention on what society recognizes as foolishness and proceed to belittle it/them,” you get even closer. It’s clear this is some sort of social commentary, so now you should think about why—why does Sedaris feel qualified to write about this? What does he point out that others might not? What does he do with this story that makes it effective/ineffective?