1. What is your reaction to the speaker's proposal? Is it modest? How? How not?
2.
Given that this is a class about satire, you can safely assume the
essay has something to do with the genre we discussed today. So, do you
see this as a satire? Explain.
3. Does Jonathan Swift, as Trinity said of Dave Chapelle, love humanity? Make sure you explain.
I was very surprised with the speaker’s proposal. The speaker started off the essay about how he or she hated to see children begging on the street, and he wanted to find a way to get them off the street. I assumed that he would propose to take care of them and raise them so they would have a good life, not fatten them up and slaughter them as though one would do an animal I would say the proposal is not modest, it is extreme. There should be easier, more ethical ways of getting children off of the streets rather than slaughtering them for a meal, like creating a shelter for them.
ReplyDeleteI think that the satire in this essay is that it is a “modest” proposal. The speaker suggests this proposal with the sort of “why haven’t we thought of this before” tone, even though the proposal in itself is not modest, it is very extremely unethical and would probably never come into practice. He implies that it would be a simple plan, with great benefits and few consequences even though it would be hard to set up, and no sane person would even insist his proposal would take action.
Jonathan Swift does love humanity, just only those who are “civilized”. He does not like the image of begging mothers in Dublin, and he hates the bad image that these beggars give outsiders when they come into Berlin. He also hates the children of the beggars, who he says “either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.”
The speakers proposal was in no way modest. At first the speaker eased into the pitch, and made some sound and just remarks on the state of Ireland, and the famine. The pitch then took a plunge into its actual meaning, eat the children. This pitch was absurd, and unthinkable.
ReplyDeleteThis essay was a perfect definition on satire. It took a real life issue (The famine, and the solutions around it,) and it exaggerated it to call attention to it in a comedic way. Even the title, and how it is a “Modest” proposal touches on the extremes within Ireland.
Yes, the speaker does love humanity, and they are using the satire to draw attention to the problem that humanity is facing, and in a way he is protecting humanity. People are coming up with insane proposals, and the speaker is telling the masses how insane they are in a lighthearted funny way.
The authors proposal was shocking to me since one would never think that the main idea was the promotion of cannibalism. because this proposal is so far fetched, it was startling after the introduction to the essay was so tender. I do not think the proposal was modest. Although the author started the essay almost hesitantly and carefully, once he brought up the main subject, he continued to explain his argument unashamed.
ReplyDeleteI think this essay is a strong example of satire. The author addresses a problem he sees is his society, and addresses it in the most extreme way possible. When one thinks of famine, they do not immediately jump to the conclusion of cannibalism as a solution. How the author proved by example how cannibalism could be a solution to famine is satire because he is providing an extreme solution to a problem he sees. Even though the author might not actually believe in cannibalism, he is still trying to highlight the problem of starvation and show that people need to start looking for ways so fix it.
I do think that Johnathan Swift loves humanity. His whole essay is a proposal to end starvation and save future generations. Even though he suggests eating our children as the answer, which is clearly lighthearted and only meant to grab the readers attention, it shows the action of trying to find solutions to save humanity.
1. I was genuinely shocked and even appalled by his suggestion that the way to end famine in Ireland was to eat children. He even made estimates about the proper weights of children that would taste the best. The author even takes it a step further and explains roughly how many people one "fat" child could feed versus one "skinny" child (whose skin could potentially turn into a nice pair of gloves or boots). In my opinion, the speaker was far from modest. In the beginning, his narrative was positive and gentle. However, he lost all modesty once cannibalism came into the picture.
ReplyDelete2. I definitely feel as though this essay is a satire. Based on what we discussed today in class, a satire is something that calls attention to a serious issue but uses humor to sort of soften the blow so to speak. Famine is no laughing matter, nor is poverty. The fact that children were (and still are) begging on street corners for food and money is horrific. Jonathan Swift knows this. However, he uses cannibalism as a way to show that people in Ireland are dying, and that something needs to be done about it.
3. He definitely loves humanity. In fact, that's pretty much what his essay is about. He loves humanity so much that he is willing to bring up a difficult topic in an attempt to save humanity. As stated in the answer above, Swift does not like the fact that people in Ireland are dying because of the lack of resources. That is why he wrote what he did, how he did. He is desperately searching for a solution because he knows that time is running out.
The authors proposal was relatively simple and well thought out, he gave us a problem and told us how to fix it and why it would be beneficial to multiple aspects of society. While a simple plan, the execution of the plan would be pretty horrible, disgusting, and unethical.
ReplyDeleteThe essay is definitely satire because it talks about a serious issue in a very over the top and exaggeratory manner. The satire is on the idea of the proposal, not exactly the plan. The man is a highly educated man presenting his ideas formally so that they would be taken seriously, it is a joke about how people will listen to anything someone who is educated and proper will say, no matter the atrocities of their ideas.
Swift does love humanity, even enough to try to make a plan to save it (famine + overpopulation). While his plan is definitely not real, he is using his platform and ideas to ge tother people talking about the issue because his plan is so outrageous.
1. Personally, I was surprised that the author's solution was to skin and cook children. The essay is written so eloquently that it steers away from the style of satire and comedy that we use and see today. The author's solution was definitely not modest; killing kids for food and clothes requires crossing the boundaries a little bit.
ReplyDelete2. I do see this as satire, because the author uses exaggeration, and over the top examples in his essay. However, he also uses this comedic form of writing to convey a real message. There is clearly a problem in Ireland, and this essay speaks to that. I think this is very similar to the Key and Peele skit, in that both acknowledge a problem, and then use an outrageous solution.
3. I believe that Jonathan Swift absolutely loves humanity. Even if the essay was not satire, Swift is trying to improve his country. We know that he is drawing attention to a pressing issue, and that is very patriotic. Bringing recognition to the poor state of many people, not only gives awareness, but forces a conversation to be started.
This essay took a turn I was NOT expecting. The authors language feels so elegant in nature, until he suggests to kill and eat children which made me legitimately laugh out loud when I realized what he was saying. I loved when he said "I am not violent in nature" as to say "Hey man I like babies as much as the next guy, but we gotta eat something".
ReplyDeleteI most definitely believe this is satirical. He is presenting a common problem that the Irish faced in that time, which was starvation. This can be compared to the Key and Peele sketch we watched earlier in class, which was also a work of satire focusing on a nonfictional phenomenon in our society. I see this as satire because the author is using a joke solution to a problem simply to just get the listener to start thinking about the issue in general. It is very clever and a bit manipulative.
I think the author does love humanity. I believe most artists that dedicate themselves to comedy love making people laugh and entertaining them, so they naturally appreciate and love other people. He wants his people not to starve, so he helps draw attention to the issue with humor as well as defusing some of the hardships his people had with this humor as well.
1. The speaker’s proposal was frightening in the fact that he obviously spent much time pondering over his idea- he has given statistics for the cost and revenue Ireland would earn from the selling and harvesting of children, and he names topics of concern that would resonate with the Irish Protestants. If the definition of modest as “humble” were to be used, then his proposal could be seen as modest, if one were to believe the words that he writes at the end of his proposal. He claims that this practice would not benefit him, as his children are too old to be sold and his wife past childbearing age; it would appear from this profession that his proposal is purely to alleviate the stress and ailments of others. However, if one were to use the meaning of modest as “acceptable,” I’m not sure that I could agree that his proposal would ever be modest. Though Irish Protestants had many concerns regarding their fellow Irish Roman Catholics, I’m not sure that the institution of corralling Roman Catholic children into slaughterhouses would be seen as acceptable- sure, some might agree to it, but I don’t believe the decision would ever be accepted by all of society.
ReplyDelete2. I definitely see this proposal as satirical, based mostly on the utter distortion of the speaker’s proposal. The disturbing ideas that he tells of are all explained in casual plain talk, with none of the severity of the idea revealed through his prose. The speaker uses words and phrases such as “horrid,” “murdering,” “poor innocent babes,” and “inhuman breast” to describe abortions, but continues on his explanation of harvested baby meat with no such disgust in his word choice. He describes a meeting with his friend wherein they are “discoursing on this matter,” and his friend “offer[s] a refinement upon [his] scheme.” The proposal is presented as a simple arrangement, prone to peer edits and common conversation, one I imagine done at the end of the day aided by a bit of alcohol. The severity of his language poses these crucial elements of a satire. (And it should be noted that his assumption “that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds” is just so extravagantly exaggerated. I’m not sure he’s ever actually met a newborn, because a child is hardly ever born at a weight of 12 pounds- especially in times of hardship like the ones he is describing.)
3. I think that the author does love humanity, and wants to offer his country support through the hard times. This is under the assumption that this is a satirical piece, however, and that the author does not actually believe the proposal put forth by the narrator. To write such an “out-there” piece, even if just satirical, is dangerous, and could only be done by someone who really wanted everyone to be able to happily survive, on their own terms. However, I do think he pushes the edge with some of his comments, such as the hints of a genocide of Roman Catholics, and the racist attitudes towards other religions and countries. I don’t think that one can love humanity if they judge and disrespect people of this collective humanity. But in order to write a satire, especially one with such appalling opinions, I believe that he must be trying to reason with humanity.
I was shocked at the first read of this essay. At first, he seemed very level-headed and collected, but he suddenly suggested the idea of cannibalism. At first, I was a little confused, but then I realized what he was doing, and it was similar to the key and peele sketch. He was acknowledging a problem and exaggerating it. And it is very effective. It shows the government that the problem is so bad that a “modest proposal” would be cannabilism. It was funny but also eye-opening. It is the exact definition of satire
ReplyDeleteI was not expecting the outcome of this essay. The author uses such nice language that it was surprising for him to suggest eating babies. I thought his proposal was modest as he saw an issue, and proposed a very simple solution. It made me laugh the more I read, along with the more and more detail he went into.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was very satirical, as the idea of eating babies to end poverty and hunger wouldn't be the best idea in reality, but was a creative solution to a problem that he noticed in the society he lived in at the time. The essay starts off kind of slow, you understand the problem but when he finally reveals the plan and the reader realizes it, it is very funny.
I think he loves humanity. This essay wasn't meant to be seriously malicious towards babies, but is using it as a clearly joke solution to a real issue. He uses humor as a way for people to start to think about problems during that time. The author cared enough about humanity to write a 13 page essay full of fake calculations and dozens of gruesome ways to deal with the children. I believe taking that time and effort into writing this for the purpose to make people laugh and think about real problems is something only someone who cares about humanity would do.
I believe he was very modest and was just stating facts. He was calling the problems like he sees them and sometimes people aren’t comfortable with that. I genuinely liked it even though I hadn’t had enough time to really dissect the essay.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning is very satirical. Or just plain sarcastic. I like that he is addressing the problem as if it is ok even though we know that the underlying tone isn’t.
The author has love for his country. Maybe I’m just a softie, but the speaker wants his country to change. That doesn’t happen if you just dance around the subject. His delivery shows how “dumb” the way things are now and that they need to change. Even in the end, he says that he wants his country to be better and that they should work to be better even though he doesn’t know exactly where to start. However, that doesn’t stop him from having hope that it can be.
P.S.
(Sorry for it being late)
Of course, systematically eating children is by no means an easy or simple task, but what makes this proposal so modest is how it is presented. Jonathon Swift doesn’t brag or boast, but merely puts forth an idea of his that he believes can help Ireland’s poverty rate, that leaves room for suggestion and improvement by others whom see the genius in his plan.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this essay so satirical is the collected and calm way that it is written. Jonathan Swift, a Christian cleric, most certainly knows that eating children is wrong, but he presents his idea in such a convincing manner with empirical evidence that one has to at least take a moment to wonder if he is serious.
Yes, Jonathon Swift does cherish Ireland and it’s people because this is satire, and so everything written shouldn’t be taken at face value. In fact, this whole tone uses so much irony that every idea proposed should be treated as if the opposite is right, like when Jonathon Swift proposes many other simpler solutions to helping Ireland, but then decides to laugh off these reasonable ideas as fantasy.