Looking at these two contradictory passages which describe the best way to portray one's feelings (specifically of frustration or anger), does elegance of language confuse the truths one is trying to portray, or does it allow them to be more clearly stated?
"Animated by this important object, I shall disdain to cull my phrases or polish my style;-I aim at being useful, and sincerity will render me unaffected; for, wishing rather to persuade by the force of my arguments, than dazzle by the elegance of my language, I shall not waste my time in rounding periods, or in fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial feelings, which, coming from the head, never reach the heart" (Selections from Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman 260).
"Horace can laugh, is delicate, is clear;
You, only coarsely rail, or darkly sneer;
His Style is elegant, his Diction pure,
Whilst none they crabbed Numbers can endure;
Hard as thy Heart, and as thy Birth obscure." (Verses Address'd to the Imitator of Horace 16-20)
These two quotes simply interested me because they gave two completely different ideas of what the relationship between conveying truth and one's emotions are. Wollstonecraft seems to argue that if emotions are allowed to flow freely through one's writing, as she intends to do, the truth and force of her arguments will be stronger. If she tried to make her arguments "sound pretty," then the ideas would become convoluted. This is very different than the passage from the anonymous poem shown above. The author praises the control of emotions that Horace has and Horace's ability to make his anger seem delicate and clear. The "Imitator," on the other hand has definitely let his anger get the best of him and is "coarse" in his language, which is shown as inferior to Horace's style by the use of the word "only."
No comments:
Post a Comment