http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/travel/in-plovdiv-bulgaria-roman-grandeur-east-of-italy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=travel
I liked this article because of the writer's ability to cover a lot of different topics during her time in Plovdiv. In a long first sentence, she addresses both the history and the cuisine while also bringing herself into the piece. She then introduces her friend that is closely tied to the tumultuous history of Bulgaria. After giving a summation of part of Plovdiv's history, she then gives the reader an idea of what the city is like today and then focuses on the Nedkovich House, explaining her time there and the relevance of the house.
She then moves on to talk about another specific location, the Hindlian House. I like that she doesn't spend too much time talking about these places but instead mentions them and their significance to the city. She quotes the curator of one of the museums twice, giving us a sense that we're there, and by giving us enough information (but not too much), she shows how much there is to see in Plovdiv and establishes her knowledge of the city.
Moving quickly to the theater, she then shifts focus to theater and its impact in the old Plovdiv. She asserts that art is "what drives" the city today. I definitely liked the quotes that she included. She briefly included her favorite current artists as well. She then talked about the cuisine, which she started the piece with, giving us great descriptions of the food. I'm not sure how I feel about the abrupt ending, taking the piece back to Mia's ancestor's murder. I definitely think that it had to be addressed because that was the part of the story that I found most interesting, but I think it seemed out of place as there was no smooth transition. It seemed abrupt, and I wish she had given the history of that more while also still talking about her time in Bulgaria. I found this piece particularly interesting because the writer was so involved in the piece but I still felt like it wasn't overwhelming, and instead of "I," she mostly used the word "we," referring to her and Mia.
I liked the article, but I have to say that I expected the search of Mia's for the spot where her great-grandfather was murdered would take up more of a central part of the story. It seemed like it could have been played up more since it introduced the piece and ended the piece. However, the ending was super rushed instead.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I felt that Mia's story should have been a larger part of piece and that the end was rushed as well. I also feel that Leigh wanted to include as much of Plovdiv as she could and say somthing about each that it felt way to packed and I couldn't figure out if she was focusing on the food, the art, or the history (Mia's or Plovdiv's). I did like the way she described her food and Bulgarian customs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackie. I don't know why some of the details were included. However, I thought it flowed otherwise. But, like Paulina said, the ending is incredibly rushed. They don't even search for the burial spot and instead just happen upon it.
ReplyDeleteI realized my comment on this never posted.
ReplyDeleteI had probably said something like:
I agree with what's already been posted, especially Caitlyn's point about the ending being rushed because the "central part of the story" didn't seem to be the central part.
I realized my comment on this never posted.
ReplyDeleteI had probably said something like:
I agree with what's already been posted, especially Caitlyn's point about the ending being rushed because the "central part of the story" didn't seem to be the central part.
I want to eat brunch while sitting on historic ruins. Brunch of champions.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I agree with the above comments. The author should've focused more on the ancestor's murder or included it within the piece. The way it's so spread apart between the beginning and the end makes it look awkward and dismembered. By the time I got to the end I was so into the food after a history lesson that I had almost forgotten about Mia's purpose for going on the trip. The piece could've gone without mentioning it at all. BUT it's such an interesting angle, it's curious why the author didn't explore it more.