I was very confused after I read the magazine BLAST. It uses a style of writing I have never seen before, and the writers are not afraid to speak their minds. This magazine is much different than the Victorian writing style and points out all the faults of England which leads me to believe that the writers also wanted to blatantly set themselves apart from those just a few years before them. In “Manifesto” it even says “BLAST years 1837 to 1900” (the Victorian Period). This magazine is very “Modernist” in the fact that the writers state their opinions and do not care how the reader will take it. These pieces are not meant to be appealing but to express one’s opinion.
The section “Manifesto” in particular caught my attention. The use of capitalization and font size of particular words demonstrate the article’s focus. This style of writing attracts readers merely by its obscurity. At some points, the words do not even make complete sentences. The words on the page are positioned in a completely random order suggesting the unorganized method of thought where ideas pop in and out of the mind in an instant. However, I was confused to see this article blasting and blessing the same things, for example humor. From this contradiction I assume the author is pointing at the fact that there are pros and cons in anything no matter how you look at it. All in all, although this magazine, and particularly “Manifesto,” is appealingly different, its ideas can be very confusing.