Addison felt that publishing was a great way to spread ideas of religion and the universe to the common man. He felt that the writer should be clear and precise; organised in his thoughts and aim to please the reader not himself. He encouraged writers to keep their work energetic for the reader. This is all very well considering that the low of thirty and high of sixty percent of the people of his time could read, i.e. he was unable to reach all the masses because of the illiteracy.
'Spectator 476' (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/spectator_no_476/) examines in contrast different writing styles; the order or disorder in approach. Following a skeleton of structure to base your work upon as a writer is said to be much easier for the reader to understand, these ideas can apply to essay writing as a student. Knowing a lot but not having the necessary skill to present it well might make you less of an intellectual than someone who has fewer facts but presents them in an intelligible manner. Looking at the aspect of gathering information for modern day journalism I think that this concept is a good thing to keep in mind. It is not only about the content; it is the representation of the content. Addison is quite rude in criticising the writers that are not straight to the point saying that they only see spots and blemishes, he himself was a popular author. Addison appeared to appreciate the work of others, so was that sincere or sarcastic?
Addison's essay about laughter (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/laughter_1/) is philosophical. He presents two contrasting arguments, that laughter is good but that it is also bad. Laughter can be considered a defect in the construction of human identity. Work of the great past artists can be considered to be more pristine because they laughed less and focused more. Among academics today this is still considered to be true. The heavy academics are deeply serious whilst a shop worker might have a jolly giggle at every advantageous opportunity. Addison says that humour is good for relaxation therefore good for society but that it can soften the human mind.
I think that you could say that Addison was racist or certainly xenophobic. He targeted foreigners in his writing in an attitude of mockery and superiority. His writing style also consists of sarcasm and dry humour, some of his work is very funny until you pause to consider whether he is being serious at which point it could be considered entirely self praising and arrogant. In the essay about the shilling http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/adventures_of_a_shilling/) Addison comments on the world and its trade. He mentions his friend’s view on the extreme nature of money’s being passed from hand to hand around the world relating ‘I defy (says he) any of these active persons to produce half the adventures that this twelvepenny piece has been engaged in’. This attitude of trade being too good to be true or too far fetched is adopted in his writing suggesting that he found the idea ridiculous.
Addison suggests a hate for superstition, alcohol, marriage, the army and the habitual speed and increase of worldwide trade. In the 'Royal Exchange' he speaks of intent dislike for the tastes for luxury that people began to acquire, he didn't like the commercial attitude of the merchants. Why need things that do not come from Britain? He found trade to be selfish, flamboyant and self obsessed. He felt that the by disturbing nature we defy it, and go against it. He believed in the loyalty to one's own country. He is daring in saying that he is unsure if people will agree with him. He says that it is impossible to be popular all the time. He had to change method to hold interest.
Could we say that the writings of Addison are similar or different to those of Locke? I think that Locke is a lot more conversational talking to his friends while Addison attacks more general matters and ideas. Do you think that Hobbes was an influence on Addison because he came before him? Hobbes’s state of nature is that we are bad; does this idea come through in Addison's work? It is clear that he finds the school of politics unclear, he hates extravagance, he rather believed in good manners and conduct.
In conclusion conversation is a lot more immediate than written text and it is therefore imperative that it is clear and comprehensible. Written work is less translucent; it can be checked. Written work also seems to immediately enter a realm of more assumed authority. People base their surety of something to be true with such phrases as 'Oh but I read it in the paper this morning'. A journalist needs to write with an understanding of both sides of the argument. Our seminar leader called this 'sitting on the fence with authority' allowing people to make their own decisions. A good writer needs to be able to adjust his or her writing to suit a particular readership; one must always consider who their audience is and target them appropriately. What’s on my mind? How do I make it understandable?
Bibliography:
Literacy (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at:
http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/print_culture/literacy
No comments:
Post a Comment