From Sir Thomas More’s title I was expecting something…different about the reading, I guess? My understanding of Utopia, mainly stemming from the movie, Antz, was the idea of a place on Earth where EVERY human being (or insect) could find happiness. Although, the Utopians and our speaker More lived contentedly in Utopia, the judgmental tone that slips into the reading is quite apparent.
From a certain standpoint Utopia Book 2 appears to be describing the most perfectly run society, in which everyone shares the work, everyone has an opportunity for education, everyone is taught to be skilled in a craft, everyone is fed well, everyone wears the same clothing and the list of these identical characteristics of the Utopians everyday life could go on, and on, and on. More provides his audience with a perfect description of this wonderful and flawless new life, or does he? After finishing the reading I took another look at some of the lines that are sneakily placed within his narration. Statements such as, “I believe we surpass them in natural intelligence, but they leave us far behind in their diligence and zeal to learn” (545), “{…}, “ This willingness to learn, I think, is the really important reason for their being better governed and living more happily than we do, though we are not inferior to them in brains or resources” (545), and “I suspect they picked up Greek more easily because it was somewhat related to their own tongue” (569) demean the society that More is so passionately describing to his audience, yet there are clearly mixed feelings between the author More and the speaker More on this subject. Therefore, it is obvious that Sir Thomas More is not the speaker who shares his same name. It seems that More was not entirely able to remove himself from his writing because his biases slip into his book concerning the supremacy of the British Empire. Thus, the question becomes can writing ever not be biased?
I would think that a narration such as Utopia Book 2 would not be used as propaganda for Great Britain? Sir Thomas More does not overly praise his homeland, but he does grant certain “natural” instincts of civilization and intelligence to Europeans in general, over the Utopians who seem from the description provided, to be far more advanced than the Europeans at the time (and to admit even our society in some ways). I see this narration in a kind of contradiction. Sir Thomas More praises all of the characteristics of the Utopian society, but there still exists tiny ignorant jabs at their culture, which demean everything that More just described about them.
In all, I think that I assumed too much from the title because I was expecting Utopia Book 2 to be a Utopia, when in fact it just acquired that name from ‘Utopus, who conquered the country and gave it his name’ (547).
I think that's the irony of the name. When in fact, Utopia, is not a utopia at all - but merely a socialist nation. That's what it seems to me anyway. To answer your question about can writing ever be unbiased, I think it depends on what type of person you are. More, obviously, needed is opinion to be known, and therefore stated it in his writing. When you're a author of fiction, your writing is always going to be biased, but when your an author of nonfiction, essays, etc. then you have some leeway. For me, I can convince myself to write a paper against my personal beliefs if it calls for such a thing or if I'm assigned a debate, and I'm assigned to be on the side that I don't believe in, then I can still convince myself enough to write a successful speech. I think it just depends on what type of person you are.
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of times in literature (and especially in this text) the author's personal views, commentary, and sarcastic undertones come through their text even when they are trying to be a neutral party. Utopia, however, appears to be judgemental in nature - but I think this was the author's intention.
ReplyDeleteI think in writing it is extremely important to be bias. Of course we can mask our words and make them politically correct, but the feeling of intensity that the author transmits to his readers is more powerful when his feeling about his own work is powerful. I think emotionally charged writing is a key factor in a successful piece.
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose of writing Utopia was to show that a Utopian society is impossible. The undertones of disapproval of this society are there so that More can almost mock this community to his audience. As for bias writing, I think it is possible to write from an unbiased standpoint. However, it depends on what you are writing about. I also agree with our classmate's comment above mine that in some cases, it is important to include your personal bias and opinions in your writing because it makes it more interesting and powerful. On the other hand, it needs to be the appropriate genre of writing to include bias.
ReplyDeleteI believe one of the only ways to have a truly unbiased article, story, play or what have you, is if you were to somehow get a computer to write for you. Most people have trouble giving a straight view of what they're talking about without taking sides. That's because they have to spin what they're trying to give their audience a certain way so that their work will be appreciated. I know I would likely have some trouble trying to read a flat story that tells the truth as the writer sees it. It would be like listening to someone talk in a monotone about something, which makes it sound like they're uninterested in the topic they're discussing. Honestly, I would rather listen to a more interesting biased work than one that was completely neutral on the subject it discussed.
ReplyDelete