Thesis:
Joe Sacco initially inhabits the outsider persona as a means of establishing a kind of distance from the plight of the Palestinians--one that could afford him a venue for escape--yet, he deliberately plunges himself into the folds of the Palestinian testimonies, becoming an ambassador of their history, closing the gap he originally constructed and shattering the Western preconceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Opposition:
Joe Sacco maintains this outsider persona and, though he does attempt to reveal the truth of the Palestinian conflict, he attempts to maintain his Journalistic objectivity by belittling some of the harsh realities of Palestinian life--never fully taking a stand on the conflict with the power to waver Western preconceptions.
3 comments:
It looks like you're trying to make an argument about Sacco's role in the novel(whether he seeks to become an ambassador of their history or to maintain a Journalistic objectivity). I think it's also worth mentioning whether choosing one or the other will affect your reading of the story.
Are you making a factual claim -- at first he is distant but then he is engaged -- or are you making a claim about how his initial or apparent distance ENABLES him to be engaged in a deeper way?
I think I need to change the last part of my thesis. It should be:
Yet, by virtue of deliberately plunging himself into the folds of the Palestinian testimonies, he becomes an ambassador of their history, revealing a deeper sympathy he has with their plight and shattering some of the Western preconceptions of the Palestinian people.
Post a Comment