Some general observations on "The European Dilemma" and "The Future Belongs to Islam"

First of all, notice the titles of these two pieces: "The European Dilemma"--a rather passive and vague title, I should say. Sounds a lot like the politician's typical "mistakes were made" apology. "The Future Belongs to Islam," on the other hand, is blatant and almost blinding, like white fluorescent lights that make you cringe and squint.

Holmes' Euro-Dilemma article is written in a middle-high style. He uses a few pedantic words here and there, but doesn't necessarily write in a high-flowery tone. The article itself is not written in any particularly great style--its even a little dry. Holmes' precise vocabulary, however, is his greatest tool. Notice in the first paragraph, he immediately ushers the reader onto the side of Hirsi Ali with his descripton of van Gogh's murder: "A Moroccan Duth Islamist anmed Mohammed Bouyer shot van Gogh in a street in Amsterdam, slit his throat, and pinned to his body a death threat against Hirsi Ali..." Moreover, he writes these actions like a grocery list--shot, slit, pinned--as if to imply that Bouyeri shoots people and slits their throats every day. No biggie. The verbs Holmes uses here, however, are visual and frightening. Hmm...

So this is Holmes' method watered down: write in a dry, journalistic style but pepper the story with dramatic verbs and phrases like "savage crime scene."

Mark Steyn's "Future Belongs to Islam" is much different. This article is written very informally. And very right-wing. I can definitely see Rush Limbaugh going on a similar rant with similar crude jokes and simplistic arguments. Steyn uses a colloquial vocabulary, as if speaking not to the well-informed (as Holmes' article seems to) but to the everyday American or Westerner. His points are, indeed, compelling and even disturbing (I sat and stared at the paper for a good ten minutes after reading this article, chewing on the words I had just read); but because Steyn writes so abruptly and informally, I find it difficult to fully credit his arguments. It really can't be that simple----but I'm not about to get into politics right now.

No, I will end with pointing out one more difference between these two writers that characterise them perfectly with their political leanings: Holmes is very PC, while Steyn brazenly is not. Holmes is tentative to even offer a solution at the end of his article or his own view on which author is right. The passage where he talks about Hirsi Ali's grandmother "inflicting genital mutilation on her" is even written with obtuse words, as if to drown out the weight of what happened to Hirsi Ali. He calls it a "bit of primitive cruelty." The words minimise the action. Steyn lies, again, on the other side of the spectrum. He calls Native Americans INJUNS. If that's not politically incorrect, I don't know what is.