Sunday, September 14, 2014

Close Reading September 14th

     David Sedaris has one of the most distinctive voices in modern writing. In his reflective essay, Tasteless, he gives a first-person narrative about what it's like living life with a severely limited sense of taste. Sedaris' dry humor can be seen in his diction and his voice shows through his use of details and his unique syntax.
     The author's diction shows his natural sense of humor. To do this, he uses everyday words in a different context. For example, when Sedaris is explaining that he no longer has a sense of taste, he says that his taste buds are "paved" beneath tar. This word is very precise, as it tells the reader that his mouth was not sprinkled, but coated in an unnatural substance. Another show of Sedaris' unusual word choice is in the sentence, "She’d raise the baton of meat to her face and examine it for flaws." By describing the piece of meat as a "baton", the author is degrading it to the level of a mere object, one that is being appraised for its market value. The effect of this diction is the understanding that to David Sedaris, food is just another item. By choosing words that have a different connotation than what is expected, the author catches the reader off guard and appeals to his or her sense of humor.
     David Sedaris' details help to explain to the reader what type of person he is. When he is talking about his cooking skills (or lack thereof), Sedaris says, "I guess I thought that as it baked the cavity would fill itself with rubies or butterscotch pudding. How else to explain my disappointment the first dozen times I made it?" In including this detail, the fact that he expected something exciting to happen when he cooked a meatloaf in an angel-food-cake pan, Sedaris gives away how bad he is at cooking. Without this statement, the reader isn't able to understand how little the author knows or cares about cooking. When the author's brother tells him to make a mad looking pizza, David says, "And, as proof of my versatility, I would create a frown,". This detailed assertion is included to show how highly Sedaris thought of his cooking abilities. He is constantly using details to reflect his comedic personality.
     Sedaris' syntax comes off like a conversation with the reader. He uses a lot of short sentences like "Part of the problem might be me," which make the piece more casual. In the sentence, "Oh, it chews all right," in reference to Sedaris' mouth, the reader can practically hear the author speaking to him or her. This pattern of short sentences makes the piece accessible to the reader and connects him or her to the author. Furthermore, the author likes to use longer sentences separated by different punctuation, like in the paragraph, "I am a shoveller, a quantity man, and I like to keep going until I feel sick. It’s how a prisoner might eat, one arm maneuvering the fork and the other encircling the plate like a fence: head lowered close to my food, eyes darting this way and that; even if I don’t particularly like it, it’s mine, God damn it,". In this paragraph, the effect of long sentences that are made choppy with frequent use of commas and a semicolon here or there is comic paranoia. David Sedaris' use of casual syntax contrasts with his slightly more elevated diction, creating the idea of a mature conversation.
      The use of diction, details, and syntax in this reflective essay work together to show sophistication without alienating the less learned readers. David Sedaris' personality is practically bursting through each word and the effect is a piece with a strong voice and great humor.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Alex, I really enjoyed your post! I like David Sedaris' writing a lot and I was entertained by the essay you chose. I don't really see the details part of DIDLS discussed too often, maybe because it's pretty much the hardest one. But I think you actually did a pretty good job at discussing it. He definitely has a very sarcastic sense of humor which you illustrated well. I was wondering what you were getting to when you said the short sentences connected the reader to the writer, did that have to do with your point earlier about how it felt like a conversation? Reiterating your point would be good, maybe something like "...and connects him or her to the author by engaging the reader in a conversation with him." I felt like the sentences you mentioned that were really long and run-on allowed me to get inside Sedaris' mind, and really just feel the thoughts as they were coming to him, which gives me a feeling that I know him personally and just get a glimpse inside his head. Great analysis though!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about that deletion, I messed up and wanted to fix it but I guess you cant edit? I'll have to watch out for that in the future. Here is what I wanted to post.

      Yo, killer post.

      This Sedaris guy is hilarious. It's weird I've never heard of him before but I dont read articles from online news sources all too often so it's not actually that surprising.

      I think your best point was his syntax because that's what popped out the most to me in the piece. It definitely gave off the conversational tone which is a part of what made it so funny to me. So Zeke, I think she was making the point that the syntax made it feel like a conversation. My question is what were you trying to say with the paranoia?

      I didn't really see that point illustrated well and I just thought it was something he was doing for comedic effect. Like it was supposed to be him giving off the image of a dog guarding his food darting its eyes everywhere in vigilance.

      Reading the piece myself, I really liked how he said "Then, too, the more you pay the less they generally give you to eat." I related pretty well because I recently went to a restaurant where the food looked more like art than edibles and its price went up accordingly, starting at 10$ and going to 20$ for single dishes (that were tiny by the way). I ended up paying like 75$ for two people.

      I definitely thought one of the best things you said in your post was that he "show[ed] sophistication without alienating the less learned readers". I wouldn't have though of that but now that you said it, I think its a strong point. He sounded intelligent without sounding pretentious and that can be pretty hard to do sometimes. It clearly shows his talent as a writer.

      Delete
  3. Hey Alex,

    Nice job on the close reading (and for showing me how to properly do one haha)! I find Sedaris to be a really interesting author, and I find your analysis of his style to be a good one. He is very sarcastic as you mention, and he does seem to have an interesting personality that seems to just reach out of the article and talk to me directly. Your syntax analysis was nice and really showed me how Sedaris managed to make his article become more casual and personal, and I agree that he made this sound mature by combining two aspects of DIDLS. What was your favorite part of the article? I really liked how he associated foods by colors, not ingredients, and this added a new depth to the article for me and also reinforced the title in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete