Al Bendich Defender Of Howl Summary

THE DEAD LAWYER Margalit Fox’s “Al Bendich, Defender of ‘Howl’ and Lenny Bruce’s comedy, Is Dead at 85” is an article that appeared on the New York Times Magazine in January 15, 2015. It is practically an obituary of this successful lawyer, who helped with two major cases around 1960 on free speech and won. Even though the chances of winning were slim. It is about how big of a fight this man fought and used his keen intelligence, spirit and his belief of free speech to win the cases. Margalit Fox aims this article to young readers of this generation. Those of just maturing age to make sure they are aware of the importance of free speech so that these young ones can change the future and

Another example is when Fox mentions, “More striking still is the fact that when Mr. Bendich wrote the brief in the “Howl” case. This formal type tone seems to increase the loss of interest of the audience and not creating the “hook” needed to pull in the reader’s attention into the article. Her writing style continues like this throughout the article, making it hard for readers to relate. But yet this formal tone helps show the importance of this article. For instance, “He wore cufflinks that at the time cost $25,000 – more than $200,000 today”. This line in the article really seemed to show the importance of the judge who was judging the

She announces that with Bendich’s help the cases were won. But the article seemed to be missing one of the most important things: How Bendich won his cases. The cases themselves are talked through very briefly and did not provide enough information. If these cases were talked through and provided the information on how Bendich won his cases, stating the concrete facts he used to win his battle would have increased the level of how well the audience understood free speech. But all Fox does is say that the case has been won. Also her choice of words were ones of high vocabulary, such as, “sartorially and ribald.” The entire article is filled with hard to understand words making it much harder to understand certain sentences, for example, “It said that this subcategory of sexually oriented is completely beyond the First Amendment pale”. Thus making it harder to understand the article