Three Mothers, One Bond, by Jenniver Hauseman for NY Times.

 

This story brings a very specific and personal insight on the issue of adoption for gay and lesbian couples. If you remove the sentences about background information, it could sound like a diary. It doesn’t sound like a monologue, through anecdotes and scenes the author shows the reader what happened rather than tell him. There are every elements we talked about in class, details, anecdotes, scenes, dialogues, background information…

The lead is effective because it’s a shock: “Don’t get on the plane the birth mother is unsure”, it grabs the reader. What next? It’s followed by a scene, how the day worked out for the couple.

There are details everywhere, for example we know the exact hour when they received text messages. It brings credibility to the story. The writter puts you as an observer.

The detailed scenes are like a break in the story. It also brings suspense. Because the story begins with bad news, you want to know if it will work this time, and you have to wait until the very end to read it. The dialogues give action to the piece.

She uses short sentences in order to dramatize. Short sentences have the impact of making you stop at every period, and so focus on what’s next: “She had left the hospital. With the baby.”

If there was no background information it wouldn’t be journalistic, however I like how the writter includes these pieces of information but not “as a dictionnary”. The sentences about background information are included in anecdotes. It shows us how they discovered the information for example. This is very compelling.

Anecdotes are always linked to personal reflexion, every anecdote has a purpose. For example, how the birth mother chose the couple because of their literature tastes. Hauseman then wonders if “something that tenuous” can make a difference.

However, the ending did not satisfy me. I am not sure I understand what the author is trying to show us by ending her piece with a meeting with the birth mother.

Lucky Girl, by Bridget Potter for Guernica magazine

Potter shows how it was like to look for an abortion possibility in 1962 in the United States. The article follows her step by step from when she found out that she was pregnant to the abortion, but more than anything it shows her incredible difficulty to find someone willing to procede with the operation and the risks she took.

The lead is a general description of how was her life in 1962. This is necessary because she wrote the article in 2010, it sets the ambiance, especially for the young readers.

The entire article is a succession of scenes and “look back” on her life. The details are incredible, she remembers everything. With very specific descriptions of the rooms where abortions occured, it makes you feel like you were there with her.

She does not only talk about the appointments but how she got there, how she found the money, all of these bring action to the piece. I particularly appreciated the dialogues, it makes the article alive. Instead of saying “she showed me the room”, she talks about the accent the lady had for example.

She dramatizes the situations with short sentences. A powerful moment is her 3rd attempt, you’ve been following her, hoping she finds a solution and you have this: “He asked me my age. Nineteen. He shook his head. Oh, no no no. Too young. Only after twenty-one.” This is a good example of “show don’t tell”. She shows another refusal in a very basic way. You don’t read her complaining, you just experience it like you were there.

The story doesn’t end with her finally aborting. She then explains how dangerous it was, with statistics and pieces of information that she did not have in 1962. This is important because she comes to realize how lucky she was, hence the title of the article.