Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

Bush Doesn't Care About Black People?

A great example of a recent logical fallacy in media would be Kanye West's attack on President Bush. Kanye has been known for his many stunts in media, such as the one where he said Beyonce had the best song of all time to Taylor Swift. In this incident, he makes the claim that President Bush doesn't care about black people just because black people were suffering during the time of hurricane katrina. 

 

 

 

Prayer- Logical fallacy

One of the core practices of most religions is prayer. With Christianity, people pray to god, jesus, and saints. Everybody prays for different reasons, but they all are centered around either asking for guidence, of asking for help. They say that if you pray to god, then god will see fit that your want or need is satisfied to his liking. Prayer is an example of circular reasoning.

If you pray to god for ten thoasand dollars to be in ur mailbox the next day, there are only a couple of possible outcomes. Least likely scenario, you actually recieve then thoasand dollars in the mail and your faith in god increases dramatically. Another scenario is that you recieve a bonus chech from your work for two thoasand dollars. Christians would say that see god is looking out for you and even if you didn't get the ten thoasand, it is obviously god's doing that got you this two thoasand dollars.

Say you recieve no money at all and loan sharks come and break your legs, but you prayed to god, so why would he let this happen to you? The answer that any religious figure will tell you is that god has a plan and that he meant for that to happen to you. So are you suppossed to feel comforted by this? That really crappy stuff can happen to you even after you pray to god and the only supposedly logical explanation that religion gives you is that he meant for it to happen to you and it is all apart of his plan. You think that nobody would fall pray to that simple logical fallacy, however prayer has been around for centuries and has been falsely giving people faith in god. Prayer is pointless because no matter what the outcome is the answer is simply "god has a plan".

 

Ouija Board Fallacy

I was scrolling through some interesting quotes on the internet in search for a logical fallacy when I caught the title of an article out of the corner of my eye. It was under the category of ghosts and supernatural controversy, so out of pure curiosity I opened the article and began reading. It wasn't until I was only about 5 minutes into the article when a certain quote caught my eye. 

"There's been thousands of years of accounts of ghosts and hauntings, and if those are true, you know, surely a spirit board can work," said Bob Murch, who is a spirit board collector (also know as Ouija boards. He is assuming that because ghost accounts  have been around for thousands of years, people must think they are true. so if people think that ghosts are real then why are people skeptic of a board game that has to do with ghosts and paranormal activity, This logical fallacy is called a "hasty generalization." Murch jumps to the conclusion that these board games are real and he bases this off of no factual information, therefore leaving him with a faulty statement.

 

Some people don't have iPhones. I guess they have a hard life!

The Apple Company released the iPhone 4 in June of 2010 with elevating sales. Even though the sales for the "revolutionary" phone have gone through the roof, advertisements for the phone are still being shown on television. One of their main subjects in the advertisement --  "if you don't have an iPhone..." has been viewed as an accurate list of facts for the shiny new toy, when they are really nothing but opinions.

The advertisements are an example of Non-Sequitor because it does not truly follow the premise. One of the examples is, "If you don't have an iPhone, then you don't have the best apps." Well then how can you explain Blackberry World and Android Market.

I cannot believe that the commercials are used as facts. The problem with this adversitising is that they are just saying basic statements that can't really be proven.   

It will make you feel like Jennifer Hudson

 Everyday media uses logical fallacies to draw in customers with certain appeal. The Weight Watchers commercial features Jennifer Hudson encouraging consumers to join the program. They use the logical fallacy ad populum. Ad populum occurs when the writer appeals to an audience's sense of identity, encouraging the audience to be part of the crown and join the popular side rather than think through the issues on their own.

This commercial is advertising that anyone can look like Jennifer Hudson. And who doesn't want to look like someone famous? They advertise it as, if you join and lose weight, you will be a part of the "in" crowd. The commercial implies that anyone can look and feel like Jennifer Hudson, and it's free!

 

the ribbons supporting...

over homecoming weekend i went to a play called Clybourne Park. it was about the racial tension in america and more specifically in chicago, and how it shifts over time. the whole play takes place in the same house but the first and second act take place over 50 years apart.

the first act is set in the 1960s, and a white family is moving out and a black family is moving in. the drama revolves around the issue that the new family will change the dynamic of the neighborhood, and not in a good way.

the second act takes place in 2008, and a white family is moving into the now dominantly black neighborhood. and,now the positions are reversed. the black community is trying to push the white family out, and they are concerned about the changing dynamic of the neighbor hood. 

at one point the two family's are arguing and the african american family ask the white family why they moved away from their safe suburban home. and they respond by saying because the people there were all a "Bunch of white suburban assholes still driving around with yellow ribbon stickers on their SUVs in support of some bullshit war" 

this is what i call a hasty generilization! he claims this objective sweeping claim of thousands of people based on little eveidence, sterotyoes and his own baises. this claim has nothing to back it up. fisrt he does not know every single one of the people with a ribbion on thier car so he can't be sure if everyone is an asshole.

and two just because a person has a ribbon does not make them an asshole. 

he was called out for this logical fallacy, don't worry!

on a different note, this play was absolutely wonderful and really got to the heart of racial tension in america, and also it was crazy funny. and really worth it to go see. http://steppenwolf.org/

Chris Christie Too Fat to be President?

The Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, is contemplating on whether or not to participate as a candidate during the 2012 presidential election. However critics are bashing him for being overweight and being too fat to be president of the United States. This is an example of Non Sequitor because being slightly overweight has nothing to do with how successful he could potentially be as president.

The news reporters have been comparing him to former U.S. president William Taft who was over 300 pounds and had to get a custom made tub because he was too fat to bathe in one. Reporters are also stating that overweight people are less likely to get jobs and are paid less than average sized people.

This is an awful technique in my opinion because an individual's weight doesn't have much to do with their intellectual decisions. An overweight man is capable of running this country. It's not like he is severely overweight and it is causing his health to decline. Therefore this is Non Sequitor because being fat does not follow the premise. Being president does not include running a marathon.

Sarah McLachlan Just Ruined My Day

 

Every single time this commercial comes on, I change the channel as soon as possible. Images of pitiful dogs and cats who apparently need my help accompanied by sad, sappy music has to be the best example of a sob story around.

A Sob Story, a logical fallacy in which the audience is bombarded by emotion-provoking ideas, could be among the most obnoxious logical fallacies of them all, especially if it interrupts my Sunday afternoon of football. How can I possibly be content with touchdowns and field goals while there are innocent animals out there dying all over the place?

This just so happens to lead to another fallacy: Either/Or. To quote Sarah McLachlan, the spokesperson of the SPCA, "This is your chance to say 'I won't sit by while an animal suffers.'" Either I donate money to this organization, or I am the reason some cat is being dismembered. While this may be an exaggeration, it is not the kind of situation I want to be thrown into. I guess I don't need to exaggerate because that's what Family Guy is for. Here is their take on the logical fallacies of the SPCA commercials:

Extremely Hollywood and Incredibly Soon

Wow .... Speechless on many levels:

 

Well, we all got to read it just in time.

I Ate McDonalds, I'm Fat?

McDonald's has never been on the list of healthiest anything. I would say that it's safe to say everyone knows McDonald's is not very healthy. McDonald's spends billions of dollars each year advertising their food, and it sells. However, some people abuse the cheap prices and delicious food.

In 2003, an unidentified man tried to sue Mcdonalds for making them fat. The judge of the case immediately dismissed the trial because of its unconvincing logic. 

The plaintiff cited that McDonald's food was making him and many other people obese. Obese does not just mean a little out of shape, obese is when your body mass index is above 30kg/m². That would be a 6 foot tall man weighting more than 225 pounds (would make them legally obese). The argument that eatingMcDonald's food made them obese, is logically incorrect. It fits into the logical fallacy of non-sequitar. 

The conclusion the plaintiff made does not follow the premise. Just like saying because it rained, i forgot my lunch. Because i ate McDonald's, i got fat does not add up. Just because McDonald's food is unhealthy does not mean that eating it is the sole reason that a person might become fat. 

This court case was made famous for its stupidity. The plaintiff obviously just wanted to make some money any way he could, but honestly his try was very weak. He presented no evidence and his statement was completely non-sequitar.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/

 

Virgin vs. Whore Dichotomy Revisited

Okay, not exactly. This post isn't about female stereotypes, but it is about the notion of being completely clean/pure or very dirty/used. This time, we see it in advertising. Kleenex is using a false dichotomy to promote their newest disposable hand towels. While these towels are probably more sanitary than re-using a cloth towel, that doesn't mean that the the disposable towel is completely sterile and a cloth one is infested with germs. This is a great example of an "either/or" logical fallacy.

 

Political Debates Strike Gold in Logical Fallacy Department

After researching political debates aired in the last few months, it became clear that the logical fallacies used within these debates are not a new trend. Logical fallacies appear very often throughout the political debates that many watch and do not even realize all the fallacious behavior taking place, but one particular website stuck out to me, which listed many logical fallacies that previous political representatives have stated in their speeches since the year 1976.

On October 13,1992 Al Gore mocked President George H.W. Bush for taking credit for playing a major role in ending the Cold War by saying, "George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise." This Faulty Analogy stated by Al Gore is what I came to a consensus of believing what cause our modern day political figures to come up with such obscene fallacies that they use up until this day. 

A prime example of Ad hominem is displayed in the Republican debate that took place on September 7, 2011, as Governor Rick Perry (of Texas) replied to the statement saying that Texas has the highest rate of un-graduated high school students, one of the top eight poverty levels in the country, and contains more than half of the state receiving at or below minimum wage, with, "Americans are looking for someone who can get this country working again,"..."because we know for a fact that the resident of the White House cannot."

Due to the long line of logical fallacies being used in politics, and outside of politics, the many officals throughout all political possessions find it easier to lean toward the trend of blaming the man (or woman) who caused the problem (Ad Hominem) rather than resolving the issue itself, or preaching to the audience that "everyone is doing it" (bandwagon effect), and many hasty generalizations that only lead to blame. 

I believe that all of the logical fallicies used in politics only lead to a never ending cycle of the blame game. In politics, you come accross the reasoning that sometimes nobody will come out as the true winner because of the two compleyely opposite opinions, and as soon as politicans can figure out that accusing their apoinent for a past action, in the use of Ad Honimen, will not accomplish any more success for the country. Rather, the politicans could settle on a single idea and come to a consensis that would benefit our country as a whole.

Debate Ends With A Chair Being Tossed?

Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Here is a video of a tense political debate in Tampa Bay, Florida between a liberal candidate and a Republican radio host which ended in violence. The reason being is that the Republican claims that the liberal was telling lies which resulted in the Republican being called cruel words such as "fat". The Republican didn't take it so well and suddenly walked away, soon tossing a chair at the liberal candidate.

  

Donate to St. Jude's: If you don't, a kid dies.

I'd have to agree with previous blog posts that the ASPCA commercials are a great example of the logical fallacy "Sob Story."

To be honest, I'd much rather donate to help a dying animal than a dying child; not because i lack morals but because most people would rather help children so there are generally more suffering animals in the world that need the occasional donation and support.

However, the St. Jude's commercial hits my every time. The whole commercial fits the description of the logical fallacy "Sob Story"; there is not just one quote to represent it. Every child in the commercial is chosen specifically to rip someones heart out of their bodies and make then feel that if they don't contribute to the cause they're basically helping to kill a child.

The most articulated idea behind the commercial is that "YOU can save a child". Every time they say those words they capture a young cancer-victim staring into the eyes of the viewer with even more devastating eyes than those of the puppy's in the ASPCA commercial.

Although switching the tv channel when a St. Jude commercial comes on seems like the simple alternative, the commercial is specifically shot to make someone feel like a complete self-absorbed American if he or she doesn't take the time to get through the whole commercial and feel something/donate something to help the cause.

Saving a life becomes easier and more important when the logical fallacy "Sob Story" is cleverly used to help create a stronger commercial.

Geico Gives You Chaos; Allstate Gives You Money

 

For a few years now the Allstate Insurance company has been showing commercials saying that the chaos guy will come destroy your house,car, and your valuables. At the end of every episode the chaos guy says that if you change to Allstate you will be better covered from chaos like him.

These commercials are a logical fallacy called Faulty Analogy. This means that you have an analogy but the logic is confusing so it might take the reader/listener a while to figure it out.

The chaos guy says:

If you got your home insurance from the same place you got your 15 minute car insurance, you should switch to Allstate. So you can be better pretected from chaos like me.

This is comparing a bad insurace company(Geico) to the great Allstate companyl. This can be confusing though because if you don't remember the Geico commercials you wouln't understand what company Allstate is saying not get or to get out of.

 

Either Destroy the Environment or Choose Our Car

 

Commercials in between your favorite television shows seem to only be trying to sell you their product.  In addition, they use different logical fallacies to persuade you to buy whatever they are selling.    

In this commercial for the Nissan LEAF the creators use an either/or fallacy.  In the beginning everyday life is shown with the seemingly simple replacement of electricity with gas.  The viewer before they know what the creator is trying to say already has the thought that everything running on gas in their head before the announcer even says anything.  Then once the announcer says "Then again what if everything didn't" run on gas the viewer is convinced that this product is the right thing to choose.  

The either/or statement usage in this commercial makes it seem like there are only to options destroying the environment by using gas to power everything or their new car.  Overall, the creators of this commercial use the either/or fallacy to make the viewer think that their car is the only logic option because the creators do not present all of the options.  

"There are somethings you can't buy, for everything else there is MasterCard."

The well known and successful ad campaign of MasterCard contains a considerably large logical fallacy. The slogan used by the credit card company "There are somethings you can't buy, for everything else there is MasterCard." This slogan displays the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

A false dilemma fallacy is when the speaker talks as if there are only two options in his argument, similar to the either/or fallacy. In the MasterCard slogan, the company speaks to it's audience as if you can either chose something you don't have to buy or you can use MasterCard.

The ad fails to acknowledge that there is more than one option in this situation. It almost makes it seem as if they are forcing you to use MasterCard if you want to buy anything at all. This logical fallacy is very hard to catch, and many people might just consider it a catchy slogan but it is not true. Even though MasterCard hid it well, the logical fallacies extensively effect the way the ad is once perceived when someone finally catches it. 

Obama and Logical Fallacies

When Obama first came on the news proclaiming Osama Bin Laden's death one thought he would be very serious. He was in fact serious in his demeanor but he used numerous logical fallacies in his speech. His use of logical fallacies helped everyone jump on his bandwagon.

The first logical fallacy he used was the sob story logical fallacy. He attempted to win americans over when he talked about 9/11. He appealed to our emotions when he talked about its affect on families.

"The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace."

This quote shows how he attempted to have Americans enthralled by this speech.

Another logical fallacy he used was hasty generalization. Obama said we were united as one to protect our country. This is hasty generalization because he is assuming that all people are on the same side now.

"We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice."

In this quote he not only uses hasty generalization but also the bandwagon appeal. He wants everyone to be on his side and to protect America. In this speech Obama uses many logical fallacies to get his point across. Some of his quotes are so cliche.  

 

 

No, I Didn't Buy You a Falcon

Modern day media, more specifically television commercials, uses logical fallacies constantly to make an attempt at attracting customers.One example of a commercial using a logical fallacy is in a state Farm commercial were a man claims his insurance agent purchased a falcon for him, while it is obvious that the argument is completely untrue.

The basis of the character's argument is the fact that he saved tons of money switching insurance companies and he used the money he saved to buy a falcon ergo the insurance agent bought him a falcon. The fallacy the commercial incorporates is a Post Hoc ( the assumption that, because two things occur at the same time or in a sequence one is caused by the other). The flaw in the mans argument is the fact that it was his choice to buy the falcon. Just because he used money he saved to buy said falcon does not mean the insurance companyis responsible.

Though it is important to note that the insurance used the humor in how rediculous the argument was to attract customers, they were not trying to make a logical argument. Logical fallacies can be used to actually try to win an argument or to poke fun at how ridiculous arguments can be. Either way logical fallacies are used in modern day media to convey ideas and arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZpWFTUz34

20 Years Doesn't Make it Good

We've all seen commercials where the advertisers say something along the lines of "serving you for over 20 years" or something like that.  These advertisements are examples of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  What these commercials are saying is pretty much that their product is better because it is older.  They are not really selling their product with real reasons. 

One example is the Mercedes Benz commercial inserted at the bottom.  Even though it doesn't explicitly say that it is better because it is older, this commercial starts with a very old car and progressively gets newer.  It is trying to show that because the company has been around for a long time, it is obviously the best. What they are trying to say is that their car is the best one and that if a company hasn't been around as long, it is not as good.  This is the reason that the fallacy is a fallacy.  Older doesn't necessarily mean better, it just means older. 

 

Why Choose Pro-choice or Pro-life?

One of the most controversial arguments of the day is about abortion, but it really shouldn't be.  The problem is that the argument is set up as a logical fallacy.  The two sides, pro-choice and pro-life, create an either/or statement.

"Either you are for abortion, or you are for government control over women's personal decisions" or "Either you are against abortion or you are for killing babies."  There is absolutely no way to win.  For the most part, every American approves of women's rights and opposes murdering people, but the either/or  statement makes it seem like you have to choose.

The names of the two sides, "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life," completely avoid addressing each other.  To someone unfamiliar with American controvercies, it would appear to be two pro- sides to two different arguments because they have both decided to be in favor of something different.  The way I see it, it's the principle of having to choose between being for two very different things, not our basic beliefs that causes the problems.

In reality, everyone agrees.  It's just a matter of people's priorities,  so why can't we decide as a nation  that we want to stop unwanted pregnancies and focus on that instead?  In the mean time we can let people do what they believe.  That's what democracy is about anyway, right?

A Puppy Pity Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO9d2PpP7tQ

 

It's those commercials. You know, the ones with the close ups of the really sad looking dogs while Sarah McLachlan sings and begs you for money after preaching to you how many animals have been abused? Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. We've all seen them and some of us have even had to change the channel for fast forward just to avoid the heart-wrenching, tear-jerking sight. This is a perfect example of the sob story/appeal to a pity sentiment logical fallacy. The people of the ASPCA foundation work to make you feel so bad for these poor animals that you have to donate to their cause or you will be left sitting on your couch feeling like a total jerk for not saving a puppy. And it works. This commercial has made millions of people feel bad enough for sad-looking animals that they will pick up their phones and call. Well played, Sarah McLachlan... Well played.

10 Items To Finish On Top

Watch this video before reading!

 

Superbowl ad's are always trying to outdo each other, trying to have the most comedic commercials of them all. This FedEx commercial tries to entertain their audience by listing out the top ten criteria to make a successful commercial. It starts off with "1.Celebrity", saying if you have a celebrity in your commercial everyone else will buy it because of them. Then it goes down a list, "2. Animal 3. Dancing Animal 4. Cute Kid" and so on. 

The fallacy used in this commercial Non Sequitur. The overall meaning to this ad is because you have all these things listed in our commercial, you will have a successful commercial. There are no others options to choose from in this commercial but the one's presented. Many other brands have presented good ads that include non of the following yet have became very popular and effective. 

This fallacy was used in a comedic way in order to capture the attention of millions of viewers watching the football game, yet it nonetheless is still a misconception. 

Funny, but valid?

You know when your show is on and your all happy and watching it with a grin stretching around your face and then commercials come on and you get really mad and want to hit someone? But then a lizard of gecko, or whatever that green thing is, comes onto your screen with an english accent and you feel happy again.

That gecko is helping Geico, a car insurance company advertise. And even though we all love the gecko, Geico decided to make some new commercials.

The commercials all differ a little but have a similar structure. A man, with a tux and crazy eyebrows and a very convincing voice, stands in an empty space and says something like, "Does Geico help you save on car insurance?"---pause---"Does blabla blabal do balabalabal?" Then it cuts to a screen where that blala bla balal does balal blala thus justifing the statement Geico helps you save on car insurance.

Some expample are when he asks does some guy play the fiddle good, and then the guy in the next scene plays the fiddle really awesome. Or when he says does this family take a while to say good night and in the next scene a family is saying good night over and over again and then there is a pause. Then some guy shoulds good night again in a goofy voice.

All these examples are funny and all but do they actually justify the statement that Geico is a good insurance complany. Obviously not, that's the humor and the whole point. But what ever the point actually was, this is an example of a faulty analogy because it is saying that Geico is a good auto insuance company just like blala alaa blaa is blaa blaa blaa. Just because statement B is true doesn't mean statment A is true as well.

However, the whole point of the commercial is to be funny and entertaining and to advertise, which they did, so I guess there's not really an overall problem.

Cheese Run = Beer Run

 

Okay watching the SuperBowl is always fun, especially watching all of the funny commercials. Seeing this commercial still makes me laugh. The logical fallacy that it sends me right off the bat is that a wine and cheese tasting is so boring that men have to hide their beer and miniature tv just to get through the evening. This would be hasty generalization. This is not completely true because it you had paid attention to the beginning of the commercial, you would have seen at least two men having a good time. I even know some people that enjoy wine tastings so they can enjoy their food a little better when they go out to eat. Logical fallacy number 2: red herring. The men literally hide their secret stash of beer and things  inside these snazzy little containers not to bring attention to themselves. The only problem is that the cheese is way to big.  This is all to get  you to reason that 1) a football game is way better than a wine tasting, 2) a football game without beer. (I mean he goes to get more beer.), and 3) Beer is better than wine.

So AXE Can Get You Girls, Huh?

 

YES, YES, if you spray this on your body , billions of half-naked women will come groveling at your feet. This is the image that the creators of AXE like to show to advertise their must-have product. AXE specializes in grooming products such as, deodorant, body-wash, shampoo and hair stylers. Each product has their own specific scent that is uniqely pungant. The makers of AXE make it sure that you follow the step-by-step process of getting girls on the back of each spray bottle.

Yes, a "seductive fragrance with the effective deodorant protection" is supposed to get you "there" right? It seems like the creater's at AXE have their logic simply...distorted. Their making a hasty generalization that has no evidence to support the ultimate conclusion that you will attract women by using their product.

Logical Fallacies in the Republican Debate.

Overall the republican debate for presidency was rife with logical fallacies. This is not unique to the Republican party, but this form of debate seems to bring out appeals that are not to logic. Mitt Romney seemed to be using non-sequiturs when the first couple of questions were directed his way, he dodged questions by pulling out information that was not entirely related.

The moderator tried to use guilt by association against John Huntsman when he equated his plan with subsidies for natural gas companies with Obama’s attempts to provide subsidies for renewable energy.  This was damaging to him because the republican base will not support a candidate who is at all similar to Obama in political ideology.

Herman Cain was asked a question about his 999 Plan and how future presidents might use it to raise taxes and he used a non-sequitur to talk about the benefits of his plan without answering the question. Mitt Romney said the current economy was Obama’s economy and was using guilt by association by associating Obama with the current economic climate.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney used Ad Hominem attacks against each other when Mitt Romney said he flip-flopped in his earlier position that pensions are unconstitutional, and Rick Perry responded that Mitt Romney had flip-flopped in his book over his health care plan in Massachusetts. Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, and Newt Gingrich all used the straw man argument when they contorted Obama’s positions to say that he is a socialist.

Newt Gingrich, and John Huntsman tried to create glory by association when they made references to Ronald Reagan who is largely admired within the Republican Party. 

 

Everyone's Jumpin' On the Bandwagon

Logical fallacies are in our everyday life and we probably use them without even knowing or acknowledging it. They're a common use of language in our society and they are a good way to get across an argument, if you use them right. For example, Obama's American Jobs Act speech. Obama, from the very beginning of his speech, all of the way to the end, used logical fallacies. The one that really caught my attention was the bandwagon appeal. He constantly demanded throughout his speech, "You should pass this jobs act right away." He was referring to Congress and the fact that he used this tactic kind of made me laugh because it was so simple, yet so powerful. He said it over and over, and it never lost it's urgency. He used many more in his speech, but this one really stood out to me. 

The Latest Republican Debate

Find those logical fallacies!

Of course, you can use any example from contemporary media to complete the assignment, but watching political candidates mess with logic is pretty eye-opening.

 

 

 

"Outdone by Reality": A Look at Post 9/11 American Culture

I mentioned it a couple of times in class, but I thought you would like to see Michiko Kakutani's overview of how writers, filmmakers and others have succeeded and failed in writing about the tragedy of 9/11.  

Here is part of what she has to say about post-9/11 novels:

Several prominent novels dealing with 9/11 drew heavily from earlier classics. Ian McEwan’s “Saturday,” which captures the precariousness of post-9/11 daily life, reads like a contemporary variation on Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway.” Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” features a hero named Oskar, who resembles the hero of the same name in Gunter Grass’s “The Tin Drum.” And Mohsin Hamid’s chilling novel “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” — which recounts the effect 9/11 has on a successful Pakistani immigrant — borrowed the structure and central themes of Camus’s novel “The Fall.” Why this eagerness to pour new content into old vessels? In “Retromania,” Mr. Reynolds suggests technology in the 2000s contributed to a “fading of the artistic imperative to be original.” In the case of 9/11 novels, familiar forms may also provide narrative strategies for artists trying to subdue an event that seemed to defy representation — one that reminds us of Philip Roth’s 1961 observation that American reality stupefies and infuriates the writer because it is “continually outdoing our talents.”