I agree with both Tom and Chris about the merits of these two works. I think that both Duras and Moore biggest strength is the creative approach they take in engaging the reader. Honestly, there have been plenty of essays that we’ve read that I haven’t liked at all. After a while, reading essays becomes kind of tedious, unless the author presents interesting material in a unique fashion.
Moore, of course, does this by organizing his theme into twenty-six seemingly random ideas, arranged in alphabetic order. This makes his essay read kind of like an encyclopedia, and each “entry” is short and to-the-point. It allows the reader to understand what Moore is getting at without reading too much into it, and thus keeps the reader from getting bored. The connections Moore draws from objects of nature, pop culture and his own life are inspired, creating a way of looking at a somewhat common theme (the loss of a father) that I had certainly never seen before. I particularly loved the entry for the letter Q, or “Quiz.” In this entry, Moore creates an impromptu quiz for the reader. This really makes it seem much more interactive than an essay should be, and actually makes it fun to read.
Duras, on the other hand, engages the reader by speaking directly to him through extensive use of the second person. I didn’t particularly enjoy reading this piece, but I did see some merit in the second person technique. In speaking directly to the reader, Duras effectively engages the reader in ways that a normal, formulaic essay simply cannot.
My main point is that, in writing, it is often easy to just stick to what you know, which can sometimes result in fairly boring essays. That’s why it’s important to take risks. These risks are most often evident in the form of subject matter: for example, the controversial essays of Joe Wenderoth or the various selections from the course reader relating to sex. However, it is also important to experiment with style, and to present readers with new essay structure. If the risk fails, there is of course the danger of embarrassing yourself with a subpar essay. But if the writer’s risk succeeds, the essay often benefits hugely from the break from form or subject matter. This is true in the case of Moore: the break in form is incredibly entertaining and makes for an easy read that gets its point across effectively. The same is also true for Duras. Although I didn’t particularly like the essay, I do think the break in form made the essay better than it would have been without it.
