Saturday, January 21, 2012
Village Politics
Using dialogue as a method of rhetoric allows for More to have a less threatening space to express her opinions and viewpoints. She stresses the dangers of reason as suggested by the Rights of Man and she is the voice behind Jack. Tom is the character who has the weaker argument always, which allows for Jack to become a voice of reason and authority in the conversation. Her response to Thomas Paine is a controversial one because she presents her opposition as a fictional opponent who always loses because More, as the author, must win in order to try to accurately prove her point. I would argue that for an uninformed, lower class reader, this could sway his or her opinion to support More after reading Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man because the language is more simplistic and less threatening. On the other side of the spectrum, I think that educated upper-class readers might find this writing to be juvenile compared to the lofty and seemingly intelligent work of the well-respected Thomas Paine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree that "Village Politics" provides a more accessible opinion against revolution through its proletariat and even entertaining nature. However, Paine's text is somewhat more direct as he states his argument plainly and without embellishment: "I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their being willed away..." Additionally, to cite another of his works, Paine's famous "Common Sense" was invaluable in revolutionary America for its straightforward rhetoric. I would say, then, that both are accessible to a broad audience in their own ways, and Paine's work was probably not only read by the upper class alone.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed below (the jumbled title, six from the bottom of the list), I felt that More actually presented the most accesible argument of the lot. While I definitely appreciate the argument you've made regarding Paine (to the point that I might just be playing devil's advocate here) I think an easy way to understand it is through John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. He took relatively contentious ideas (Protestantism, during the reformation) and presented them in a simple, conversational manner. To this day, the allegory is used as a manual of Christian instruction. On the other hand, some period sermonizers would come out with simple, doctrinal "This is what I believe..." documents that were received to less popular acclaim. Why? They're just less interesting.
Delete