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?
Zadie Smith comments on the difference in rhetoric of the president and the poet. To start, Smith discusses how the president only has one voice, while the poet has many. As president, it is seen to be important to only have one voice and keep strong, solid opinions. If he has more than one opinion he is often criticized for flip-flopping on issues and being unreliable. Oppositely, the poet is encouraged to have more voices. More voices allows for the poet to express himself more and have more creative freedom depending upon what the topic is and what style.
Even though Smith describes the different rhetoric in such a way, she also feels it would be a nice change of pace to see a president who can freely discuss his opinions without having to worry about judgement or criticism. If the president had the freedom of the poet, he could voice all his feelings about a subject. Having many voices could even show a more vulnerable president in a good way, meaning the people could feel more connected to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment