To conclude her essay, Zadie Smith discloses: “In this lecture I have been seeking to tentatively suggest that the voice that speaks with such freedom, thus unburdened by dogma and personal bias, thus flooded with empathy, might make a good president” (192). However, she rejects this claim by advocating for the many-voiced role of the poet. What is the difference between the rhetoric of a president and that of a poet? Does Smith suggest there should be a difference?
When a president speaks they are hoping to convince a majority of the nation that the decisions they are making are for best. Or maybe to convince a majority of the nation to vote for them. They have to be careful with what they say not to offend anyone because it could result in less support for them. They have to worry about making people happy. They have to have a voice that reaches a large part of their population in a mostly positive way.
When a poet speaks they have to have multiple voices to keep their poems interesting for the readers. They have to be able to please an audience in a similar way that the president does. Although poets have to be careful about what they say, they do not need to be as careful as the president because they do not have to reach as large of an audience as the president. Also the poet is read for entertainment but a president is not really an entertaining figure. I think Zadie Smith thinks there should be a difference because if the president spoke the way a poet does, he would most likely not be very successful and vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment