# data[].attributes.body
“I like that. I like that the Mall serves as our national Tupperware, reliable and empty, waiting to be filled with potluck whatever.” Page 248

Evaluation

Here Vowell expresses her skills through the use of figurative language. She uses a simile to compare the functions of the mall to the functions of Tupperware. The reason why this is an example of “good writing” is because of its simplicity. It is easily understood and thus the Mall is better understand. This is necessary for both people who are unfamiliar with the Mall and do not really know the purpose, and it’s beneficial to those who are very familiar with it and breeze by it with little comprehension of its significance.

# data[].attributes.body
“‘In a land declaring its fervid democracy, its inventiveness, it’s resourcefulness,  it’s unique daring, enterprise in progress thus did the virus of a culture, snobbish and alien to the land, perform its word this integration...’” Page 245

Interpretation

Vowell is trying to credit an important figure that is relevant to this text. Often times Vowell provides her own personal commentary on many events and figures. Here she references someone else who too has an opinion on the memorial which is partially aligned with hers. This is significant because it provides another perspective other than her own. It gives a new take on the subject that could be of greater benefit to some readers than merely presenting her own. She does this by specifically setting aside a portion of the text to quote him in hopes of expressing his purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
“On the Saturday before Easter, there is an empty bandstand set up at the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial’s steps...” Page 248

Basic

Why did Vowell choose to continue? She has a nice little conclusion about monuments and Lincoln and then her grandfather to tie it all together. So why did she keep going and introduce something new? I wish she would’ve just ended the novel here and I would be more contempt. Maybe she chose to continue to relate it back to modern society. She included a little story about an Easter event. Perhaps it was to show the Memorial’s legacy. But overall, I wish it would have concluded at the  * .

# data[].attributes.body
“...was grilled about photographs of giddy U.S. soldiers proudly pointing at the Iraqi prisoners of war they had just tortured...” Pages 206-207

Rant/Rave

Since the Bush administration and the War on Terror was during my childhood, I know very little about this controversial era. Also, growing up in a very republican household did not involve discussing Bush’s faults. Therefore, it is interesting to learn these things from someone who don’t love Bush. I understand that she is biased obviously, but this is still important information to be learned. And the comparison to McKinley is very informative. The whole point of teaching history is to avoid repeating it. So to say, who was Bush’s history teacher?

# data[].attributes.body
"Like Garfield's, the McKinley National Memorial in Canton is a domed edifice on top of a hill. It's a gray granite nipple on a fresh green breast of grass..." Page 192

Rhetoric

Vowell uses descriptive imagery in this paragraph to paint a picture in the audience's mind. This picture is of the actual physical appearance of the statue, and it is also contains her perspective and opinions of it. She uses specific diction in order for the reader to accurately understand the reality of it and the way it affects her. By doing this, the audience is better able to comprehend the thing she is focusing on and absorb her writing style better. Without these vivid descriptions, the memorial would lack the attention and acknowledgement she is trying to achieve.

# data[].attributes.body
“Of course the officer sided with Amy, who, floating as she got out of the police car, sneered at the Pontiac driver, ‘My sister is writing a book about our trip and I bet she’s going to put you in the McKinley chapter.’” Page 191

Reflection

This would honestly 100% be me. This is such a petty move by both the sister and Vowell but I would totally do this. At first you’re reading this diversion going what the heck. And then you get to this part and you begin to understand and laugh at how relatable this is. Like this is a minuscule section of the book but it is likely what I have resonated most with. I hope my sister writes a book so I can do this too. This is one of the funniest things Vowell has included thus far.

# data[].attributes.body
"Emma Goldman claimed to abhor to violence, and yet her speeches and writings are full of sympathetic odes to killers and would be killers..." Pages 218-219

Evaluation

Vowell seems to have spent too much time describing Goldman's character. Vowell is known to make diversions within her writing, but this one seemed to stray too much. This does not seem to exemplify good writing since the audience becomes lost in this side character. She does not make as much of a clear connection between Czolgosz and Goldman as necessary. Vowell should have made a shorter commentary that would not be so distracting from the actual assassin.

# data[].attributes.body
"On February 15, 1898, the American battleship the Maine exploded... In fact, the evidence was inconclusive then and remains so today." Page 197

Basic

Here Vowell states that the evidence is still inconclusive, being 2005– the year of publication. Since then, according to Mr Beeler, it’s been concluded that the explosion was indeed accidental and caused by a malfunction. Therefore, what would Vowell have to say about this event if she knew the truth? Would she advocate more in disdain towards McKinley? Or would she acknowledge the uncertainty of the reality then? Likely she would argue even more in opposition to war. She was use this fact to her advantage even more to share her opinion. It would still be interesting to know hear her commentary.

# data[].attributes.body
“When I told a friend I was writing about the McKinley administration, he turned up his nose and asked, ‘Why the hell would anyone want to read about that?’ ‘Oh I don’t know,’ I answered. ‘Maybe because we seem to be reliving it?’” Pages 204-206

Interpretation

Vowell’s purpose here is to introduce her comparison of the McKinley administration to the Bush administration. By using this opportunity instead of immediately divulging into the comparison, she effectively sparks discussion into the readers mind. She addresses that there is a reason as to why an analysis of McKinley should be acknowledged. Instead of purely discussing it and leaving the reader to wonder why all this matters, she makes it known the necessity of this topic. This creates an effective transition from the past to the present.

# data[].attributes.body
"But the first thing the present-day visitor notices is that it is exceedingly gay...'The toe of one shoe projects over the edge of the base, giving the work a sense of vigor and incipient movement.'" Pages 178-179

Rhetoric

Vowell juxtaposes two interpretations of the Garfield Monument. She first provides her own opinion of the monument by describing it in a humorous and partially offensive way. Then she provides a completely different approach which describes the monument in a much more honorable way. Here she is contrasting these two ideas very close together in order to reveal her perspective more. She shows her sarcastic view of most things and compares it to a more ordinary point of view. By doing this, the audience senses her tone which is thus reflected by the mood.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Garfield assassination is always described, on the rare occasions it is described, this way: James Garfield was shot by a disappointed office seeker who had wanted to be appointed ambassador to France..." Page 174

Reflection

I relate to this quote in which I too was a victim of this understated description of his death. I remember Mr. Beeler spending a solid 60 seconds in which he practically declared the same thing about this assassination. Upon hearing it then, it seemed like an insignificant event that was bound to happen because of the expansive use of the spoils system. I cared very little and moved on very fast. Upon reading about it now, I discover that instead that Garfield was murdered by an insane man who should have been hospitalized. I now know that this event likely should not have been so overlooked.

# data[].attributes.body
"I conceived of the idea of removing the President four weeks ago..." Pages 169-170

Rant/Rave

Guiteau honestly cracks me up but also scares the crap out of me. This guy is literally psycho. Like how on earth does he have the audacity to feel so noble and divine when in reality he is so stupid? But all those factors also terrify me and remind me of the realities of mankind. There are people today with the same crazy mindset as him that pose a significant threat to society like the Las Vegas shooter. Thus, it is important to treat these individuals seriously. Nevertheless, humor is a effective way of reducing the sadness and Guiteau's commentary sure gives opportunities for this.

# data[].attributes.body
"Yet he's clearly in awe of the people who lived here and what they tried to accomplish. He doesn't shy away from their faults... There's a lot to be learned from empathy." Page 140

Rant/Rave

So at first I was completely appalled at how he could not look with utter disgust and shock at such a peculiar community. He seems to be drawing a fine line between acknowledging and condoning it. However, I do admire, like Vowell shares, the empathy he shares for these people. He realizes that they are all humans and "sinners in the hands of an angry God" like he later states. He is trying not to judge these people which is what I as a Christian should do too but it becomes hard. This whole focus of the chapter was very strange in general and hard to absorb and maintain a sound mind about.

# data[].attributes.body
"It was a fiasco of planning and leadership, a national embarrassment and disgrace, and as the bureaucrat in charge, Robert Lincoln had frozen blood on his hands..." Page 161

Interpretation

Within this portion of text, Vowell is trying to flip the script and focus on something rarely touched. Most readers focus on the audacity of both the Garfield and Lincoln assassinations and feel pity for anyone affected and pure remorse for the killers. However, Vowell here shows how even the pitied and honorably "good" people can do very bad things too. She is expressing human nature and how there is good and bad in everyone. Few would have thought anything less than good about Lincoln's son, but now the reader will remember this astonishing mistake and never think of him the same way. She is doing an underlying comparison of Robert Lincoln and of either assassin.

# data[].attributes.body
"Oh? That's it? No corrections? ... If no one corrects this kid he is going back home under the impression that Paul Revere is the most important American who ever lived because why else would they erect his statue every two blocks?" Pages 163-164

Reflection

Even though this segment is meant to be humorous, I find it to be a quite common phenomenon. While most people do not fantasize over famous historical figures and their statues, most people have some kind of fad or obsession that leads one to be appalled if another person does not share or recognize it. For me, this often embodies when people do not understand my pop culture references to Vines and memes. I roll my eyes when my mom does not understand why me and my sister laugh when two guys are in a hot tub. Nevertheless, Vowell expresses an emotion and reaction that I, along with others, can very much relate to.

# data[].attributes.body
"Besides his plea of insanity, Guiteau would in fact capitalize on this medical bungling at his defense trial, arguing that the doctors killed Garfield, "I just shot him." Page 160

Basic

Could this actually be a plausible defense? If his letters specifying that he intended to kill the President were not uncovered, could he have been convicted of attempted homicide instead of an actual homicide? Vowell indicates that the doctors did indeed do the main damage to him. So could he have gotten away with more than he deserved? It would be interesting to know the strength of the courts and attorneys back then to know how far his plea could go. Likely, he would still be convicted of murder since it was in fact the President and emotions are very high strung at the time. The courts would not seek to look bad before the watchful public eye.

# data[].attributes.body
“Here’s a distraction... Peter Gallagher’s attorney character on The O.C. might defend his clients).” Pages 147-148

Evaluation

This topic of choice was not an applaud to her strong writing skills. This was too much of a distraction for the reader to enjoy. Maybe other readers may find this relatable or even humorous, but, personally, it seems to be a waste of space. It was unnecessary and a poor  decision to spend so much time commenting on something so minuscule. This portion does not exemplify good writing. It does not yield a proper reaction from the audience and should have been avoided.

# data[].attributes.body
“By contrast, thanks to the generous lenders at Planet Hollywood, actor Harrison Ford’s ...accidentally smeared it with ketchup.” Pages 162-163

Rhetoric

Vowell employs the rhetorical device of irony in this segment. She contrasts the nonexistent McKinley display to the Ford display. She discusses on the irony of the lack of concern for a president but for the expansive concern for an actor. Because of this, the reader is able to better understand the underlying theme Vowell is commenting on. The reader realizes the slightly embarrassing trait of American culture that Vowell wishes to express.

# data[].attributes.body
“One partygoer in particular seemed drawn to them. He picked him up, held the hands in his own, and asked the host to whom they belonged. And when he heard that they were the hands of Abraham Lincoln, the man, Edwin booth, silently placed them back up on the shelf.” Page 116

Interpretation

Within this paragraph, Vowell is trying to characterize Edwin Booth. Her detailed descriptions of his actions and this event allow the reader to picture the scene. Thus, the audience begins to understand and identify these figures as more than just someone in history. The reader begins to see them as actual people with actual stories and actions. Her characterization allows for a different perception from the audience to greater achieve her purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
“As I am scrutinizing the plaque about Charlotte Scott, a black woman with white hair walks past, staring at me. Smiling, she yells, ‘Emancipation Proclamation!’ She turns away with the wave, calling out over her shoulder, ‘Freed the slaves, amen!’” Page 119

Basic

After reading this and seeing that the next page starts a new chapter, I can’t help but be confused as to why this is the ending of the Lincoln portion. Vowell obviously has a flare for being dramatic, so why was this ending simply a quote from some woman? Shouldn’t it express the end of her pilgrimage rather than shift the focus to someone else? But then I realized that she did this because the woman’s statement is basically a summary of Lincoln’s legacy. Not all will remember that he was hesitant to free the slaves. Few will remember the death of his sons. Some may not even know his killer by name. But most people know him as the man who freed the slaves. That statement is the perfect representation of how despite any journey she may have endured, that will be the lasting memory of Lincoln.

# data[].attributes.body
“The Garfield assassination is an opera of arrogance, a spectacle of greed, a galling, appalling epic of egomania dramatizing the list for pure power, shameless and raw.” Page 125

Evaluation

This specific sentence can be recognized as good writing. Vowell is able to lengthen the sentence without making it a run on or hard to comprehend. The phrase after phrase emphasizes and dramatizes the assassination without drawing the audience into boredom. The rhyming and alliteration contribute to the making of this beautiful sentence. Vowell’s ability to combine all of these syntax and rhetoric tools exemplifies her ability as a writer to create admirable prose.

# data[].attributes.body
“‘Freeze drying, which makes you pretty light’— pretty crunchy too I think, remembering the freeze-dried strawberries I had sprinkled on my breakfast yogurt...” Page 97

Rhetoric

Vowell makes a comparison here between freeze dying and freeze dried strawberries. This comparison is purely to add to the level of humor she uses in her writing. It emphasizes her sarcastic tone she employs. It causes the audience to recognize her tone and find it funny to. It describes the concept better and makes it more appealing to read.

# data[].attributes.body
“Emma Goldman, anarchist Russian Jewish advocates of free live and birth control sounds exactly like pretty boy white supremacist murder John Wilkes Booth. Which, come to think of it, isn’t that Eurosong since Goldman, like Booth, was also a vocal member of the John Brown fan club.” Pages 89-90

Rant/Rave

This is another of her many insightful comments that I enjoy. Like her comparison between presidents and assassins, this statement is something that sparks a chain of thoughts. If you’re open minded, it causes you to sympathize more with the sexists and racists of society because they too have radical thoughts. Theirs, however, are simply less accepted by society. That’s what makes America so complicated. The American right is free thinking and free speech, but only for those that most of society accepts. We condemn white supremacists for trying to execute their right to free speech on a Florida campus, but we praise those who promote the murder of babies. I enjoy Vowell’s statements like this because it reminds me that I’m not alone with these sometimes immoral comparisons and lack of condemnation on the people who do very much so deserve it.

# data[].attributes.body
“Down the road, in Port Royal, we stop for breakfast at a roadside diner cum gas station where we experience both the best (ham and grits) and the worst (Confederate flag crap) the South has to offer.” Page 87

Reflection

This is something I can whole heartedly understand and relate to. When I was in NY not long ago, it was a nice break from the racist pride of the South besides the occasional “never surrender” or anti-immigration T-shirt’s in China town (ironic right?). Two days after NY, we took a short trip up to Gatlinburg. That morning, I got to experience some of the best breakfast I’d ever had. That afternoon, I got to experience one shop after another full of Confederate flag bathing suits and license plates. I love my state and I love the South but sometimes it’s hard to praise it when the racism is around every corner. The pride of the south is defiantly real, but it’s hard to tell if it’s greater for football or white power. So that is why I mentally said “retweet” when I read this.

# data[].attributes.body
“Or maybe I could tell him about the morning in September idealistic young men not unlike himself flew into the city where I live and taught me the meaning of the word crushed.” Page 64

Evaluation

Any time an author can produce a statement that makes the reader go “Wow” exemplifies good writing. This sentence holds so much meaning and power to the reader that causes one to grasp what she is saying. The word choice creates an immediate understanding of what she is referring to without her using any actual names. This is a skill that only well developed writers have the ability to do. Vowell’s comparison makes clear the relationship between the past and present and then and now. It is a remarkable claim that most anyone can resonate with.

# data[].attributes.body
“Then turning around to look into the interior of the fort...’Roughly speaking, this was the crossroads to the Gulf of Mexico.’” Pages 79-80

Basic

Once again, I am struggling to see the significance of a portion of Vowell’s writing. Pure discussion on the vast size and expensiveness of the fort takes up half a page and for what reason? While the fort itself holds value to her pilgrimage, I do not seem to understand why the complexity of it does. Perhaps the whole thing is simply to preview her following statement of how the guide is not specifically stating whether the fort’s production was just or unjust. Maybe the extensive information was for the reader to develop his or her own opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
“Not that I have any sympathy for Booth’s groaning, but I think I understand where his befuddlement comes from... So Booth isn’t entirely misguided in thinking he’d inspire a song or poem or two himself.” Pages 82-83

Interpretation

Vowell uses this analysis/comparison of Booth and Brown as a transition into her story of her visit to Charles Town. She is often seen using this tactic to swiftly shift from one historical figure or place to another. In this specific one, she is able to move from Booth to Brown without a dramatic effect. By being able to do this within her writing, the novel flows much better like a normal story with a plot. The transition allows her to reveal more information about history or herself. Without it, the reader would feel like she is presenting short stories rather than one blended and whole one.

# data[].attributes.body
“I thought of it as the Hamlet approach. In the gravedigger scene and act V...” Page 53

Rhetoric

Vowell’s allusion to Hamlet better demonstrates the point she is trying to convey. Vowell is attempting to reveal a personality trait that she is trying to avoid. By referencing a common play and character, the audience is able to better understand and reason with her. Thus, her purpose of seeking for the audience to mimick her and not objectify historical dead bodies is better met. Without it, one would fail to understand the significance of upholding and not understating the deaths of these figures.

# data[].attributes.body
“Days later, when Mudd was arrested for aiding and abetting the assassin, the doctor  claimed that he didn’t recognize the actor... The mystery—did he or didn’t he?” Pages 59-61

Rant/Rave

Conspiracy theories and unsolved mysteries like Roanoke and now this have always fascinated me. I enjoyed reading about such a thriller even if the true end is not known. Personally, I side with Vowell and convict Mudd as guilty. It seems too coincidental to have been seen with Booth before and later not recognize him. The little evidence that Vowell provided from Steers seems like a sufficient case that Mudd’s name is actual mud. However, due to Vowell’s personal opinion, the facts we are presented with are likely biased. It would be very interesting to learn more about this and determine an unbiased opinion of ones own.

# data[].attributes.body
“As if McVeigh wearing the shirt isn’t disgusting enough, the catalog sold out of most sizes of the shirts after McVeigh made the news...” Pages 57-58

Reflection

Vowell and I have similar comments on peculiar people who make phenomens out of the most sickening things. First, anyone who would openly wear such a T-shirt is an embarrassment. Second, for said individual to somehow find reasoning to wear this shirt after it was worn by a murderer is purely  inconceivable. I felt a similar feeling to Vowell when I visited Alcatraz East and saw the miniature shrines devoted to rapists and murderers. It is just appalling to me that human nature is to idolize such immoral figures and events. Vowell and I both understand the monstrosity of people like this.

# data[].attributes.body
“The whole reason I wanted to take Owen to Disney World is that I fear that someday he’s going to look through his childhood photo album and wonder why all his vacations with his aunt took place at places like the McKinley  Memorial and Wounded Knee...” Pages 41-43

Basic

I’m confused as to why the author chose to include a lengthy portion about her and her nephew. I see that she was using this to describe Powell’s cemetery, but I do not understand why it was necessary to include so much other information. We already know she’s quirky and a history junkie. Why does she keep proving this? Perhaps it is simply because of the writing style she has taken for this piece. It’s half history and half her and this is part of the half she wants to the reader to see. Still, I think it’s a waste of time compared to her other stories since it lacks the focus on history.

# data[].attributes.body
“Then, at the end of the sneaky list of the way things were, he simply says, ‘And the war came.’ ...  but after watching the slavery agony in 1776, I like to think of it as a postcard to Jefferson and Adams, another four-word sentence: Wish you were here.” Pages 26-27

Rant/Rave

I really appreciated the insight on Lincoln’s rhetoric in his speech. The analysis of that four letter quote holds a lot of meaning that is hidden to the naked eye. Then his statement about blood shed being paid was something so right and true but also something I had never heard before. Vowell’s comparison of the Emancipation Proclamation to a post card was quite touching and powerful. I just thoroughly enjoyed diving into a piece of history and gaining a new perspective on it. It changes the way you think about Lincoln and the events described. The reader also then sees a little bit more of the sympathetic side of the author.

# data[].attributes.body
“And how sick is this?... So how sick is that?” Page 22

Rhetoric

The rhetorical question  impacts the mood of the text. The question itself creates a negative connotation to the event that leads her to ask this. It emphasizes her disgust of the scene which reflects onto the audience. By doing this, Vowell creates a disturbed mood compared to the previous comedic one created by the description of the play.  These tactics help the author achieve her purpose of drawing light to the issue and making her audience act in opposition instead of acceptance towards it. Without the rhetorical question, it would be unclear as to whether she was going off on one of her rants or clearly trying to persuade the audience to align with her tone. Presenting it twice notified the reader of the tone shift and the way he/she was supposed to perceive it and act upon it. However, this also a way in which she reveals herself and reveals that she too is twisted and morbid. She’s implementing her sarcastic humor that she always conveys but is still making her point clear. This self awareness helps present and strengthen the message.

# data[].attributes.body
“And while I gave up God a long time ago, I never shook the habit of wanting to believe in something bigger and better than myself. So I replaced my creed of everlasting life with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Page 11

Evaluation

The portion of text above is an example of a poor writing choice she made. Clearly expressing her political beliefs is already a risky approach, but it was necessary considering the topic of her novel. However, mixing religion in it too is an even more precarious decision. Human nature allows for more sympathy towards the differing opinions within the political realm, but human nature creates a harsher judgment for those who counter the personal, spiritual beliefs of the said individual. Vowell’s audience is already likely lessened because of her approach towards Bush, but this inclusion probably created a larger decrease. That being said, this factor perhaps had less of an impact considering the year of the book’s publication. Yet, if you fast forward more than 10 years later to today’s world, the effects probably have a greater weight. Overall, I believe it was a unnecessary and poor writing choice to provide this personal extension.

# data[].attributes.body
“I am only slightly less astonished by the egotism of the assassins... Just who do you think you are?” Page 7

Reflection

Considering my political opinions about the nation’s current president, I can relate and coincide with astonishment of a man’s, especially a business man/entertainer’s, ability to believe that he is capable and qualified enough to lead the country out of whatever despair it seems to be involved with. I too relate and see the world and our country as too valuable for just any 45 men to believe they have what it takes to lead the nation. Watching a highly publicized election of a highly publicized man causes me to understand Vowell’s approach to the comparison of a killer and a president. Her statements are written echoes in the back of my head that were there but never interpretable during the constant news streamings. Her message can relate to any person since everyone can recall a president that didn’t satisfy and clearly corresponded with the negative ego she describes. This analogy aligns with my recent presidential opinions but also allows room for the judgment of other figures too.

# data[].attributes.body
“Not that I want the current president killed... Like Lincoln, I would like to believe that the ballot is stronger than the bullet.” Pages 6-7

Interpretation

The authors purpose for this portion of text is to maintain her credibility as a moral and ethical human being. The honest sharing of her inner analysis allows for the reader to have more sympathy and room for understanding as to why she chose to embark on the production of a gruesome topic. She holds herself accountable by being clear with the reader about her intentions and beliefs. The inclusion of the director’s note which parallels her own speculations strengthens the image she is trying to create of a sound mind undeserving of psychiatric treatment or a government investigation. Her utter bluntness and lack of self denial is crucial to the reader understanding and relating to the subject she is trying to present. Without this confrontation within the preface, one would lack the ability to take her writing seriously and understand her comedic approach.