Guest Blogger: Taylor B.
Proposing Modestly
Jonathon Swift is a genius in the ways he presents and constructs his article, A Modest Proposal. First he publishes it in the newspaper alongside other “proposals” by politicians. By putting it in the middle of the paper, people who are reading it believe it to be just another proposal. As the readers are reading the proposal he makes it seem like his solution is going to be the great solution to solve everything. The reader is sucked in and keeps reading.
Then he talks about eating babies! The switch is quick and easy and you, as the reader, are repulsed by the thought. However you want to keep reading to see what he’s talking about. He gives such ridiculous suggestions that you automatically disagree with him. Then in paragraph thirty Swift proposes many solutions that would actually work. For instance “teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants” and “putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers”. He isn’t actually proposing that they eat babies but he shows that if politicians don’t want to face the real problems and make REAL solutions then they might be heartless enough to eat babies.
The thing that I find interesting is that politicians today aren’t much better. In A Modest Proposal he words his language in a friendly way that if you aren’t paying close attention to what he’s saying you might agree with him. Today politicians say what they think you want to hear but in reality many people want to hear the truth. In A Modest Proposal Swift is blunt and shows exactly what needs to be done (NOT eating babies, but the other solutions he offers) and maybe that’s what we need today. Maybe we need a Blunt Proposal, not something covered in fluff that everyone will like.
posted by erdecker @ 9:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Good job tay, I think you got right down to the sole purpose of his proposal! Too many politicians use convincing language to manipulate people. The only thing I'd disagree with is where you said "the switch is quick and easy." There isn't really a switch. Swift eases into his proposed solution with an assertive manner and stays pretty constant throughout. The only place there might appear to be a shift is when you finally see what he's suggesting, and are shocked, but his tone is confident and "logical" the whole way through.
Blunt proposal maybe be more beneficial to the citizenry as a whole, but it would not benefit the politician; therefore why would do it?
I think Taylor means a switch in the reader's response. You go along with him until the part where he first flat out states his proposal-to eat babies. Swift stays constant in his writing style and attitude, but the reader switches when they finally figure out what he is proposing (and that switch is quick & easy!) and Nate is right--a blunt proposal of solutions would be beneficial to the country, but as you implied people won't like that. Therefore it wouldn't work !
Nathan and Amelia are right its the point of satire isnt to be blunt. People cant take when someone points out their problems directly. A Modest Proposal as ridiculous and harsh as it seems is easier to take (and has a bigger impact) than Swift just saying "The way things need to change and heres why..."
Good blog Taylor, you did really well extracting Swifts purpose :)
So this is almost a lose lose situation: the public doesnt want to hear fluff, but we dont like the truth. Whats a politician to do?
Swift had a good idea with the whole satire thing; get your ideas across in a way everyone will listen
I like how you say that "politicians today arent much better." Because it is true! People dont realize things they are argeeing with these days. We are too fluffy!
Hmm, you say that politicians are too fluffy? Let's look at some examples and see... I'll use the 2010 election for governor in Minnesota as an example
Paul Thissen's campaign page
Paul here has a very flashy website, with plenty of details about his campaign on the front page. Diving into the Issues section gives even more information. While a bit of fluff shows through (especially catering to groups he would have weak support from, such as agriculture and farmers), it's not terrible.
Some politicians go another route, for example, Mark Dayton. Unlike Paul, he has bulleted lists for everything he has done in the past, and explicitly specifies the particular programs and bills he will support.
Certainly, neither of these examples is bad. Maybe politicians have been paying better attention to Swift than you think :)
- Thomas D
Nicely done, Taylor!
comments closed.
Post a Comment
<< Home