More about 9/11

David Usborne's September 11 articles are great pieces of writing. Personally I like his retrospective piece a lot more. I think that it paints a much clearer picture of what was happening that day. Thinking about it though, I imagine that with so much happening it must have been hard to focus the deadline story. Usborne had so much to tell his reader's in England, but not enough space to really do it. There was just so much. So his focus was a little off, but it told the entire story--from his disbelief to the lines of people donating blood. The retrospective piece was written after everyone already knew what had happened. He does not have to make us believe or see anything--we already have. So with this piece he can speak less of facts and more of details, emotions, and his own story.

The good aspects of his deadline article is that he is in tune with his reader. While taking them through his own 9/11 experiences, Usborne answers all the questions the reader would ask. How many are dead? What are the people in New York doing for each other? Who is responsible? What does the city look like now?

I learned from Usborne that you have to find the story. You have to watch and you have to investigate. Usborne says that he did not even believe the man who said something about the towers being hit by a plane:

"The towers at the World Trade Center had just been struck by two large passenger planes, he told me...Clearly Mr. Mckinney's explanation wouldn't do...it was too outlandish."

Still he goes out to the sight and sees what he can see. Granted eventually he turns back--I suppose the lesson here is to know when to back off.

Usborne really gets a feel for the horror of the day, and with his generous use of the word I, the reader really gets involved in the story.

Finally, Usborne taught me through this article that a good simile never dies. In both articles he compares the Twin Towers to Lego towers. Its rather effective, and I am glad that he brought it back in the retrospect article.