Well played DFW...well played

Longest. Article. EVER.
(You already knew that)

BUT... I did get engrossed after I told my self to shut up and read. And get over those mile long sentences. Besides, how can I not feel partial to an author that decides to refer to me as "the person reading this"? (Aww...thanks man!)

DFW*does a really good job of taking care of his readers' interests. It is Rolling Stones Magazine he's writing, who's primary readership consists of our peers, and he understands that we usually have the attention span of a zombie in a brain factory. Especially regarding matters like McCain's campaign touring escapades. Wallace's writes in such a way that we actually begin to give a damn about McCain's activities for the election, and the election as a whole. He it's almost like he predicts when your attention will start to flag, and BAM! Hey look it's a cool imagery thing..."imagine that"!

As for the Vietnam bit of Wallace's article, despite the fact that it smacked slightly of favoritism, I ended up agreeing with everything he said. I've don't hate McCain, I'm pretty sure no body does, and I'm pretty sure Wallace knew that. He uses that to make us start actually liking McCain. I for one never had any sort of feelings attached to McCain, but reading the article, the guy began to grow on me. You actually start to respect him, and see him as a hero.

Wallace basically takes you through the motions he went through to form attitudes about McCain.You start out in two minds about the Senator and then slowly slowly, as more evidence is added, you begin to formulate what exactly you think of him till you arrive at the conclusion that he's kind of a great guy.

Wallace's engaging voice leads an unsespecting reader right into the conclusion that McCain and Wallace wants you to end up with: "John McCain was...incredibly honest and forthright" You almost don't want to know all of the facts. Why ruin the guy? He's a hero!



*does anyone else think Dallas-Fort Worth?