"Me Talk Pretty One Day" Analysis

           Despite the intentional use of  poor grammar in the title of the essay, I enjoyed reading "Me Talk Pretty One Day" by David Sedaris. His use of an interesting title grabs the reader in as does his topic sentence in his introduction. But I don't know everything about the makings of a great essay, despite my seeming vast knowledge on the subject. However, after reading The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey, I feel as though I can review and write essays better and with some authority to reference to. Concision, clarity and the flow of a paper are just a few ideas to keep in mind while writing, all of which I'll look into in "Me Talk Pretty One Day."
            The first main idea that Harvey mentions in Nuts and Bolts is about concision. This is a very important idea when writing so one can be understood easier. It's nice to throw in fancy words and interesting diction from time to time, but when used too often and in large sentences, readers will get lost and drown in the unnecessary fluff that was added to make us sound smarter. Harvey says nicely, "Concision can add remarkable grace to our prose. It also makes our prose easier to read and understand. Yet many of us are afraid of writing concisely because doing so can make us feel exposed" (1). Concise does not mean that the sentence cannot be more than fifteen words long; it just means that adding extraneous words to a sentence makes a reader lose the main idea of what you're trying to get across. Sedaris does a nice job throughout his essay of being concise by using short sentences so that the reader remembers what he was talking about at first. Sedaris writes, "Regardless of their nationalities, everyone spoke what sounded to
me like excellent French." Nicely said- nothing said that isn't needed and states his opinion nicely, despite being in the passive voice. We'll get to that later though.
             Another big idea in literature is clarity. We, as writers, understand what we're trying to say, but when it comes to actually getting our point across, we can have trouble. A great question Harvey says to ask yourself is this: "'Does my reader understand the words I'm using, in the way I'm using them?" (22). Another would be "'Have I explained enough so that he knows what I'm talking about?" (22). As we write we can get carried away and just assume everyone knows what we mean until we see the blank looks on the faces of our audience and crooked brows. Sedaris does a fairly nice job of this as well. He lets us know of his opinions on things as well as information needed leading up to his opinions. When he says his prior experience of French, "I've spent quite a few summers in Normandy, and I took a month long French class before leaving New York," he then follows up with "I’m not completely in the dark, yet I understood only half of what this woman was saying." He helps give us background information that helps clarify why he would feel the way he does. However, the voice he uses changes throughout, from active to passive and back again. While that is allowed in some circumstances, here it makes the paper a bit awkward to read- he should choose to make it all active or all passive. Probably all, or mostly, active voice. Harvey says that "Sentences written in the passive voice turn the usual narrative pattern upside down. The subject doesn't do anything -- it is acted upon" (35). Sedaris goes from writing, "I've moved to Paris with hopes of learning the language," to "The teacher marched in, deeply tanned from a recent vacation, and proceeded to rattle off a series of administrative announcements."
            Lastly is the concept of flow. Sedaris seems to do this very well too. His ideas connect with one another to help create the illusion that we see what he sees, a great quality in good writing according to Harvey. "If the writer has done his job, the traveler will prove worthwhile and maybe even entertaining" (48). I was entertained by Sedaris' story, and his flow of matching pronouns helped make sure the same narrator was speaking the entire time. He used "I" in the correct time vs. "me" like when he says, "My only comfort was the knowledge that I was not alone," unless trying to speak in another language and prove a point. That slip-up in correct grammar is intentional and the theme of his essay, allowing him to get away with the sentence, "'I know the thing that you speak exact now. Talk me more, you, plus, please, plus.'"
             I did enjoy reading the essay and, according to the ideas in The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey, I feel that David Sedaris did a fine job with his essay. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but revisions in an essay are sometimes personal preference vs. necessary. The essay had good flow and was concise with no run-on sentences, but needed a little help with clarity when it came to the style of voice to use and when. Congratulations Sedaris, you now have a Harvey approved essay.