1. What is the author arguing?
I think the author, Henry L Mencken, is obviously arguing against Bryan. He had a lot of negative things to say about him. The entire writing by Mencken was him hating on Bryan and seemed as if everything Bryan did was wrong. It also seemed like Mencken was making fun of Bryan in a harsh way. He stated "He knew all the while that they were laughing at him-if not at his baroque theology, then at least at his alpaca pantaloons." He did not see one sincere thing in Bryan besides his liking for country lawyers, country pastors, and all country people.
2. How does the author appeal to logos(logic), pathos(emotional quality), and ethos(the writers perceived character) with their arguement?
I think the author appeals to an audience many ways. For one, it seems as if he laughing at Byran and said rude things but it's kind of hard not to funny especially when he said "surrounded by gaping primates". The author is definitley rude to Bryan but he is writing it in a joking manner. To me it seems as if Mencken is mocking Bryan's belief especially the baroque theory throughout the entire writing. He mentions "When he died he was the peer of Abraham." Mencken talked about Bryans beliefs as if it were some kind of joke. He even added "... and that Jonah swallowed the whale." He says this because he is simply mocking Bryans beliefs. Even before reading the actual writing, you get a sense that Mencken never liked Bryan just from the first little paragraph. Throughout the writing, Mencken adds his own little opinions, such as "Bryan lived too long, and descended too deeply into the mud to be taken seriously hereafter by fully literate men, even of the kind who write school-books."
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
I think the historical signifiance of the document is to show that religion and politics just dont go together. Mencken mentions that Bryan came very near being the President of the US. But I think the reason he didn't was because of how strongly he felt about his beliefs and wasnt afraid to speak about them.
4. Do you find the authors arguement convicing? Why or why not?
In my opinion I dont find the arguement convicing. For one I thought Mencken was way too harsh in the way he was writing about Bryan. He didnt have to make fun of him just because he didnt fully agree with him. One thing that I agreed with Mencken was that when you mix religion and beliefs with politics, nothing good comes out of it.
I think that comedy and humor has changed quite a bit since this was written, and although we may not be capable of fully appreciating his wit, the subtle humor is still evident in his writing style. That being said, I think you did a good job of analyzing the tone of Mencken’s writing, and giving key examples of his jokes and jests. Humor is an effective method for appealing to one’s audience, however this may not be true in Mencken’s case. Those in his audience who support his nontraditional viewpoint and are fond of his writing most likely enjoyed the humor, but because this is an obituary for Bryan, I must assume that his audience includes those who favored Bryan’s point of view- people he directly offended in his writing. He does not appeal to them in a way that will change their opinions in his own favor or persuade them to support his views. He outright insults them, and probably angers and ignites resentment in them.
ReplyDeleteI think that by writing in this way, Mencken reveals certain qualities about himself (Ethos.) Through his apathy for Bryan and his supporters in this time of grievance, he seems very uncompassionate and cruel, but it also reveals his own confidence and self-assuredness.
I agree with you on the matter of whether his argument his convincing. I found him too callous and harsh in his arguments.
I think that you did a very good job of summarizing this document and I can agree with you on almost everything. I feel that in this document Mencken's main point was to insult and put down Bryan and what he believed in. He shows a lot of emotion, and his character through his humor and that he does not have much respect for Bryan, his jokes that he tied saying connecting with his religion I believe made a big insult on Bryan's religion. I feel that if Mencken would have used more logic and if he wanted to persuade his audience that Bryan was not a good of a man as the south thought then should have been less insulting about their religion since the south really respected Bryan. I do agree with Thao Nguyen that back then humor was much different then it is now and I think that humor can be used help persuade you audience but in this case I think that this rude humor did not work to help change the minds about Bryan. I also agree with Oksana Labaz that this document is a good example to show that there needs to be a separation between church and state and that politics and religion just do not mix.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job of analyzing Mencken's article. I liked your answer to number four because you backed up how you didn't find the argument convincing. I thought he took everything as a joke, i felt like he was disrespectful towards Bryan. I also thought that Mencken could have been more straight forward without the rudeness, and the article would have been more convincing. I do agree with Thao, and Diana that humor is can be used differently, and in different ways of expressing it.
ReplyDeleteI think your summary is very well written and accurate. I especially agree with what you wrote about number four. You said that you thought Mencken was being too harsh, and I think so too. While most of it was stated in a humorous way throughout, I think he takes it a little too far, especially when talking about the subject of one's beliefs. In my opinion, the article would've been better if Mencken decided to censor himself a bit more to come off less hostile.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you on number to and the idea that the author appeals to the audience with humor. I believe Mencken was very rude and disrespectful to Bryan's beliefs. I think that the author appeals to the audience by showing a time in history when a trail of such magnitude lead the arguments which is debated continuously between religion and science. I did think you provided good details to support your ideas from the text. I think the author was convincing in the theory that the scope trail influenced the division of people. I agree the historical significance shows how mixing politics and religion isn't good for a candidate.
ReplyDelete