How Swift's satirical genius keeps him from changing the world reception that he encounters in the world, and that very few people are offended by it "Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay - Jonathan Swift Satire has a long and illustrious history as a medium for intellectuals who find human society lacking. Vexed by human folly and vice, satirists employ sarcasm, wit, and irony to expose the world's flaws in hopes of bringing about change. One of the most famous satirists of all time, Jonathan Swift, aimed to do just that with his work Gulliver's Travels. Throughout his life, Swift was an active politician and clergyman, devoting much of his energy and writing to social issues. Although he was by no means a revolutionary, he hoped that his novel would "wonderfully repair the world" (Swift 14) and at least convince more people to adopt his ideas. History tells us that despite Swift's intentions, her story didn't pan out. have as much effect as he wanted. It was certainly a controversial book that was simultaneously acclaimed, decried and widely discussed by intellectuals and ordinary people alike. But it is not a work that inspired major social or political change, at least not universally. Instead, hundreds of interpretations have accumulated over time about the meaning of Gulliver's travels. Book IV alone has sparked endless debates and hypotheses among scholars. James Clifford recognizes these many interpretations and lists some of the many different versions of the Houyhnhnms of Book IV: 1) a vision of prelapsarian perfection, inaccessible to man... (2) an unattainable ideal which man nevertheless should striving to achieve, (3) an ideal limited by Swift's view of the nature of man... (5) the simple absence of vice, (6) one of two opposite sides of nature of man, (7) pure reason, but not the ideal, (8) cold, inhuman beings, devoid of Christian benevolence...(12) Trojan horses designed to betray gullible humanity(90 ).Why does Gulliver's Travels generate so many contradictory interpretations? And if Swift's satire is as sharp as it is made out to be, why didn't he become the Thomas Paine of his time? The problem lies in Swift's style of satire; its convoluted nature, complex narrative, and layers of hidden meaning make it ineffective as a change-generating document. It provides anything but the clear ideals and principles needed to attract a large enough audience to have an effect on sociopolitical institutions. One of Swift's most powerful, and therefore most confusing, satirical devices is his use of Gulliver as the narrator of Gulliver's Travels. What makes this first-person narration such an interpretive nightmare? On the one hand, it is unclear to what extent Gulliver represents Swift's views and to what extent his character is distinct from Swift's. Because Gulliver is an opinionated and colorful character with a different detailed history than Swift, it is easy to conclude that they are different people with different beliefs. However, there is ample evidence that Gulliver and Swift share certain ideas. For example, biographical evidence leads us to conclude that Gulliver's denunciation of certain aspects of governmentEnglish was the result of bitter feelings on Swift's part. Swift, during his life, spent much time working for the Conservative Party and had hoped to be rewarded with a deanery or bishopric in England (Hunting 25). Instead, he received a deanery in Dublin, probably due to the interference of someone who did not appreciate Swift's previous satirical jabs. As a result, Swift felt misused by the British political system and expresses his feelings through Gulliver, who says things like "Ministers of state... are taught to excel in the three main ingredients, insolence, lying and corruption” (Gulliver 303) If we could assume that Gulliver’s feelings completely matched Swift’s, it would be easier to discern the purpose of Swift’s social criticism However, it soon becomes clear that Gulliver is not a. textual spokesperson for On the contrary, Gulliver's views on English society and institutions are greatly exaggerated. He chooses the worst examples to represent the groups when he speaks with his master Houyhnhnm about lawyers, prime ministers, doctors, of the Affairs of England and the Causes of War between the Princes of Europe His tone in describing these features of English society is by no means neutral or indifferent. Consider, for example, his description of judges: [They are] chosen from among the most skillful, aged or lazy lawyers, and. having been partial [SIC] all their lives against truth and equity, find themselves in such a fatal necessity of favoring fraud, perjury and oppression, that I have known several of them to refuse a large pot -of wine on the side where justice resides, rather than causing harm. the Faculty by doing anything that does not suit their nature or function (Swift 296). These strong words ("fraud", "perjury", "oppression", "lazy") and Gulliver's apparent inclusion of all the judges in his attack give the impression that Gulliver sees no redeeming qualities in the judges and n therefore has no tolerance towards them. Did Swift really have such a harsh opinion of the judges? This is doubtful2E In fact, in a letter to Alexander Pope, Swift states that although he has "always hated all professions and communities of the Nations... all [his] love is towards individuals, e.g. [he] hates[ s] the tribe of Lawyers, but [he] love[s] such a counselor, judge such and such with physicians” (Gulliver 14). Here, Swift indicates that he can maintain respect for an individual judge while disapproving of the profession in general. Gulliver, on the other hand, never distinguishes between individuals and groups, and never claims to love individuals. Further evidence that Swift did not have as desperate or hateful a view of humans as Gulliver did is another letter to Alexander Pope, in which Swift states that he "does not hate mankind, it is the rest of you who hate them because that you would like them to be reasonable.” Animals" (Swift 14). This is certainly in opposition to Gulliver's feelings regarding humanity at the end of the novel, as the sight of his family fills him "with nothing but hatred, disgust and contempt" (Gulliver 338 ) and the mere smell of human beings causes him to keep his "nose well blocked from the street" (Gulliver 338) As CJ Rawson states, "even if Swift launches a more moderate attack on humanity than Gulliver, the point." Gulliver's view prejudicially hovers over all this...this indirection destabilizes the reader, denying him the comfort of defined categories of a well-defined position, whether of resistance or assent” (84). obviously not the same views as Gulliver, but due to Swift's massive use of exaggeration andour own lack of knowledge about many of Swift's motivations makes it extremely difficult to determine what is from Swift, what is from Gulliver, and what is from Gulliver. is a mixture of the two. In addition to being a distorted spokesperson for Swift, Gulliver serves yet another purpose that further complicates our analysis. He is himself a character in the story and is therefore just as likely to be satirized to represent human folly. We would like to feel a sense of trust in Gulliver as a narrator; unfortunately, his actions, especially towards the end of Book IV, become ridiculous and extreme, and as a result, we begin to suspect his opinions and perceptions. Gulliver is an absurd character throughout most of Book IV, as he attempts to emulate the Houyhnhnms by adopting their neighing form of speech and endures second-class citizenship simply to remain in their society. But it is especially at the end of the story that Gulliver rejects his family's love in disgust and spends all his time in the barn talking to his horses, that we begin to doubt the wisdom, the maturity and reliability that lie behind Gulliver's character. Do we implicitly believe the views of someone who would be willing to abandon all vestiges of their human past, including a loving family, to live among overly rational and compassionless horses? Or does Swift intend for us to see Gulliver as a ridiculous and contrary character and therefore assume the opposite of everything he says? Our previous analysis of the relationship between Gulliver and Swift indicates that we can neither completely reject nor accept either of these ideas. Swift wants us to take some of what Gulliver says with a grain of salt, but also recognize some degree of truth in his other sentiments. However, we do not have enough knowledge about Swift's views to know when Swift is mocking Gulliver and when Gulliver is speaking for Swift. Once again, Swift leaves us in a gray area with his extensive use of the narrator as a satirical tool. With this ambiguous oddity as our sole source, we are then exposed to two strange and fantastical societies, both riddled with contradictions. How does Swift’s use of fantasy further complicate and obscure her message? Fantasy is an interesting genre in that, at first glance, it seems unrealistic or non-human, but in reality it rarely avoids human conventions. Satirists can use fantasy coverage to their advantage, giving each unreal character a symbolic meaning intended to represent something about human society. In a way, fantasy is the ideal forum for satirists, as they can freely criticize and mock the world without being accused of attacking human society. However, in the case of Gulliver's Travels, these additional layers of symbolism make determining meaning even more difficult and obscure an already confusing narrative. Gulliver's journey to Houyhnhnmland results in his encounter with two very different species: the intelligent, rational Houyhnhnms, and the dirty, uncivilized Yahoos. There are already elements of juxtaposition at play, as Swift gives human form to Yahoo, while the rational creatures on the island resemble horses. What is the purpose of this juxtaposition? Do the Yahoos symbolize everything that is immoral in humans, and the Houyhnhnms the opposite ideal? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for the species that resembles humans? Keeping in mind that Gulliver, our constant source of impressions and information on both groups, isPartially, an examination of the two societies reveals that neither the Houyhnhnms nor the Yahoos are clear symbols of an idea, but rather represent an amalgamation of various different ideas. , and often contradictory, Swift feelings. Two conclusions can be drawn about the Houyhnhnms and their meaning: 1) they represent rationality and 2) Swift does not mean that their society is ideal. How do we know they represent rationality? Swift makes this explicit throughout Book IV, with statements such as "the great maxim [of the Houyhnhnms] is to cultivate reason and be entirely governed by it" (Gulliver 351). If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from Book IV, it is that the Houyhnhnms embody rationalism, although it should be noted, returning to Clifford's quote, that even this has been contested. But how can we then assume that Swift does not endorse rationality? Unlike Swift's feelings regarding political institutions, his position on the Enlightenment idea that humans are beautifully rational creatures is quite clear. He states in a letter to Alexander Pope that he has obtained “materials for a treatise proving the falsity of this definition of animal logic; and to show that it should only be rationis capax” (Swift 14). In other words, he admits that humans are capable of rational thought, but argues that they should not be defined by that rationality. In another discussion of reason, Swift argues that "although reason was designed by Providence to govern our passions... it seems that... God intended that our passions should prevail over reason" (28). Since Swift certainly does not approve of excessive rationalism and the Houyhnhnms are an overly rational society, we are led to the conclusion that they are quite the opposite of Swift's ideal. Unfortunately, the only conclusion we can draw based on fairly concrete premises is then undermined by Swift himself. Once again, Swift complicates matters by developing the Houyhnhnm society in such a way that it has both good and bad characteristics. and thus becomes a symbol of contradictory concepts. Houyhnhnms never lie, being so honest that the word "lie" does not even appear in their vocabulary. Swift, being a clergyman, probably approves of honesty. This is the Houyhnhnm company that embodies something that Swift supports. But does Swift support the idea of marriage without "courtship, love, gifts, unions, [or] regulations" (317), being based instead on a rational decision made by the parents, given that Swift explicitly states that “no wise man was ever wise”? married according to the dictates of reason” (28), we must assume that he does not approve of the cold logic of Houyhnhnm marriages. To further confuse our perception of Houyhnhnm society, we learn that the Houyhnhnm never get sick, are healthy athletes, and value the qualities of friendship and kindness above all else. These are generally qualities that contribute to the well-being of society. These good qualities combined with less desirable Houyhnhnm institutions and traditions leave us with a messy set of conflicting symbols and ideas. If Swift really wanted to convince people that humans are not, and should not be, rational animals, he would have done better to create a rational society with less admirable qualities and more undesirable institutions. An analysis of Yahoos, the dirty and wild human animals. , also turns out to be confusing and ambiguous. Like the Houyhnhnms, it is not clear what the Yahoos represent. Are they a symbol of the primitive tendencies of,.

Essay / How Swift's satirical genius keeps him from changing the world reception that he encounters in the world, and that very few people are offended by it "Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay - Jonathan Swift Satire has a long and illustrious history as a medium for intellectuals who find human society lacking. Vexed by human folly and vice, satirists employ sarcasm, wit, and irony to expose the world's flaws in hopes of bringing about change. One of the most famous satirists of all time, Jonathan Swift, aimed to do just that with his work Gulliver's Travels. Throughout his life, Swift was an active politician and clergyman, devoting much of his energy and writing to social issues. Although he was by no means a revolutionary, he hoped that his novel would "wonderfully repair the world" (Swift 14) and at least convince more people to adopt his ideas. History tells us that despite Swift's intentions, her story didn't pan out. have as much effect as he wanted. It was certainly a controversial book that was simultaneously acclaimed, decried and widely discussed by intellectuals and ordinary people alike. But it is not a work that inspired major social or political change, at least not universally. Instead, hundreds of interpretations have accumulated over time about the meaning of Gulliver's travels. Book IV alone has sparked endless debates and hypotheses among scholars. James Clifford recognizes these many interpretations and lists some of the many different versions of the Houyhnhnms of Book IV: 1) a vision of prelapsarian perfection, inaccessible to man... (2) an unattainable ideal which man nevertheless should striving to achieve, (3) an ideal limited by Swift's view of the nature of man... (5) the simple absence of vice, (6) one of two opposite sides of nature of man, (7) pure reason, but not the ideal, (8) cold, inhuman beings, devoid of Christian benevolence...(12) Trojan horses designed to betray gullible humanity(90 ).Why does Gulliver's Travels generate so many contradictory interpretations? And if Swift's satire is as sharp as it is made out to be, why didn't he become the Thomas Paine of his time? The problem lies in Swift's style of satire; its convoluted nature, complex narrative, and layers of hidden meaning make it ineffective as a change-generating document. It provides anything but the clear ideals and principles needed to attract a large enough audience to have an effect on sociopolitical institutions. One of Swift's most powerful, and therefore most confusing, satirical devices is his use of Gulliver as the narrator of Gulliver's Travels. What makes this first-person narration such an interpretive nightmare? On the one hand, it is unclear to what extent Gulliver represents Swift's views and to what extent his character is distinct from Swift's. Because Gulliver is an opinionated and colorful character with a different detailed history than Swift, it is easy to conclude that they are different people with different beliefs. However, there is ample evidence that Gulliver and Swift share certain ideas. For example, biographical evidence leads us to conclude that Gulliver's denunciation of certain aspects of governmentEnglish was the result of bitter feelings on Swift's part. Swift, during his life, spent much time working for the Conservative Party and had hoped to be rewarded with a deanery or bishopric in England (Hunting 25). Instead, he received a deanery in Dublin, probably due to the interference of someone who did not appreciate Swift's previous satirical jabs. As a result, Swift felt misused by the British political system and expresses his feelings through Gulliver, who says things like "Ministers of state... are taught to excel in the three main ingredients, insolence, lying and corruption” (Gulliver 303) If we could assume that Gulliver’s feelings completely matched Swift’s, it would be easier to discern the purpose of Swift’s social criticism However, it soon becomes clear that Gulliver is not a. textual spokesperson for On the contrary, Gulliver's views on English society and institutions are greatly exaggerated. He chooses the worst examples to represent the groups when he speaks with his master Houyhnhnm about lawyers, prime ministers, doctors, of the Affairs of England and the Causes of War between the Princes of Europe His tone in describing these features of English society is by no means neutral or indifferent. Consider, for example, his description of judges: [They are] chosen from among the most skillful, aged or lazy lawyers, and. having been partial [SIC] all their lives against truth and equity, find themselves in such a fatal necessity of favoring fraud, perjury and oppression, that I have known several of them to refuse a large pot -of wine on the side where justice resides, rather than causing harm. the Faculty by doing anything that does not suit their nature or function (Swift 296). These strong words ("fraud", "perjury", "oppression", "lazy") and Gulliver's apparent inclusion of all the judges in his attack give the impression that Gulliver sees no redeeming qualities in the judges and n therefore has no tolerance towards them. Did Swift really have such a harsh opinion of the judges? This is doubtful2E In fact, in a letter to Alexander Pope, Swift states that although he has "always hated all professions and communities of the Nations... all [his] love is towards individuals, e.g. [he] hates[ s] the tribe of Lawyers, but [he] love[s] such a counselor, judge such and such with physicians” (Gulliver 14). Here, Swift indicates that he can maintain respect for an individual judge while disapproving of the profession in general. Gulliver, on the other hand, never distinguishes between individuals and groups, and never claims to love individuals. Further evidence that Swift did not have as desperate or hateful a view of humans as Gulliver did is another letter to Alexander Pope, in which Swift states that he "does not hate mankind, it is the rest of you who hate them because that you would like them to be reasonable.” Animals" (Swift 14). This is certainly in opposition to Gulliver's feelings regarding humanity at the end of the novel, as the sight of his family fills him "with nothing but hatred, disgust and contempt" (Gulliver 338 ) and the mere smell of human beings causes him to keep his "nose well blocked from the street" (Gulliver 338) As CJ Rawson states, "even if Swift launches a more moderate attack on humanity than Gulliver, the point." Gulliver's view prejudicially hovers over all this...this indirection destabilizes the reader, denying him the comfort of defined categories of a well-defined position, whether of resistance or assent” (84). obviously not the same views as Gulliver, but due to Swift's massive use of exaggeration andour own lack of knowledge about many of Swift's motivations makes it extremely difficult to determine what is from Swift, what is from Gulliver, and what is from Gulliver. is a mixture of the two. In addition to being a distorted spokesperson for Swift, Gulliver serves yet another purpose that further complicates our analysis. He is himself a character in the story and is therefore just as likely to be satirized to represent human folly. We would like to feel a sense of trust in Gulliver as a narrator; unfortunately, his actions, especially towards the end of Book IV, become ridiculous and extreme, and as a result, we begin to suspect his opinions and perceptions. Gulliver is an absurd character throughout most of Book IV, as he attempts to emulate the Houyhnhnms by adopting their neighing form of speech and endures second-class citizenship simply to remain in their society. But it is especially at the end of the story that Gulliver rejects his family's love in disgust and spends all his time in the barn talking to his horses, that we begin to doubt the wisdom, the maturity and reliability that lie behind Gulliver's character. Do we implicitly believe the views of someone who would be willing to abandon all vestiges of their human past, including a loving family, to live among overly rational and compassionless horses? Or does Swift intend for us to see Gulliver as a ridiculous and contrary character and therefore assume the opposite of everything he says? Our previous analysis of the relationship between Gulliver and Swift indicates that we can neither completely reject nor accept either of these ideas. Swift wants us to take some of what Gulliver says with a grain of salt, but also recognize some degree of truth in his other sentiments. However, we do not have enough knowledge about Swift's views to know when Swift is mocking Gulliver and when Gulliver is speaking for Swift. Once again, Swift leaves us in a gray area with his extensive use of the narrator as a satirical tool. With this ambiguous oddity as our sole source, we are then exposed to two strange and fantastical societies, both riddled with contradictions. How does Swift’s use of fantasy further complicate and obscure her message? Fantasy is an interesting genre in that, at first glance, it seems unrealistic or non-human, but in reality it rarely avoids human conventions. Satirists can use fantasy coverage to their advantage, giving each unreal character a symbolic meaning intended to represent something about human society. In a way, fantasy is the ideal forum for satirists, as they can freely criticize and mock the world without being accused of attacking human society. However, in the case of Gulliver's Travels, these additional layers of symbolism make determining meaning even more difficult and obscure an already confusing narrative. Gulliver's journey to Houyhnhnmland results in his encounter with two very different species: the intelligent, rational Houyhnhnms, and the dirty, uncivilized Yahoos. There are already elements of juxtaposition at play, as Swift gives human form to Yahoo, while the rational creatures on the island resemble horses. What is the purpose of this juxtaposition? Do the Yahoos symbolize everything that is immoral in humans, and the Houyhnhnms the opposite ideal? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for the species that resembles humans? Keeping in mind that Gulliver, our constant source of impressions and information on both groups, isPartially, an examination of the two societies reveals that neither the Houyhnhnms nor the Yahoos are clear symbols of an idea, but rather represent an amalgamation of various different ideas. , and often contradictory, Swift feelings. Two conclusions can be drawn about the Houyhnhnms and their meaning: 1) they represent rationality and 2) Swift does not mean that their society is ideal. How do we know they represent rationality? Swift makes this explicit throughout Book IV, with statements such as "the great maxim [of the Houyhnhnms] is to cultivate reason and be entirely governed by it" (Gulliver 351). If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from Book IV, it is that the Houyhnhnms embody rationalism, although it should be noted, returning to Clifford's quote, that even this has been contested. But how can we then assume that Swift does not endorse rationality? Unlike Swift's feelings regarding political institutions, his position on the Enlightenment idea that humans are beautifully rational creatures is quite clear. He states in a letter to Alexander Pope that he has obtained “materials for a treatise proving the falsity of this definition of animal logic; and to show that it should only be rationis capax” (Swift 14). In other words, he admits that humans are capable of rational thought, but argues that they should not be defined by that rationality. In another discussion of reason, Swift argues that "although reason was designed by Providence to govern our passions... it seems that... God intended that our passions should prevail over reason" (28). Since Swift certainly does not approve of excessive rationalism and the Houyhnhnms are an overly rational society, we are led to the conclusion that they are quite the opposite of Swift's ideal. Unfortunately, the only conclusion we can draw based on fairly concrete premises is then undermined by Swift himself. Once again, Swift complicates matters by developing the Houyhnhnm society in such a way that it has both good and bad characteristics. and thus becomes a symbol of contradictory concepts. Houyhnhnms never lie, being so honest that the word "lie" does not even appear in their vocabulary. Swift, being a clergyman, probably approves of honesty. This is the Houyhnhnm company that embodies something that Swift supports. But does Swift support the idea of marriage without "courtship, love, gifts, unions, [or] regulations" (317), being based instead on a rational decision made by the parents, given that Swift explicitly states that “no wise man was ever wise”? married according to the dictates of reason” (28), we must assume that he does not approve of the cold logic of Houyhnhnm marriages. To further confuse our perception of Houyhnhnm society, we learn that the Houyhnhnm never get sick, are healthy athletes, and value the qualities of friendship and kindness above all else. These are generally qualities that contribute to the well-being of society. These good qualities combined with less desirable Houyhnhnm institutions and traditions leave us with a messy set of conflicting symbols and ideas. If Swift really wanted to convince people that humans are not, and should not be, rational animals, he would have done better to create a rational society with less admirable qualities and more undesirable institutions. An analysis of Yahoos, the dirty and wild human animals. , also turns out to be confusing and ambiguous. Like the Houyhnhnms, it is not clear what the Yahoos represent. Are they a symbol of the primitive tendencies of,.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch