Style Imitation

Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie 

"I was born in the city of Bombay...once upon a time. No, that won't do, there's no getting away from the date: I was born in Doctor Narlikar's Nursing Home on August 15th, 1947. And the time? The time matters, too. Well then: at night. No, it's important to be more...On the stroke of midnight, as a matter of fact. Clock hands joined palms in respectful greeting as I came. Oh, spell it out, spell it out: at the precise instant of India's arrival at independence, I tumbled forth into the world. There were gasps. And, outside the window, fireworks and crowds. A few seconds later, my father broke his big toe; but his accident was a mere trifle when set beside what had befallen me in that benighted moment, because thanks to the occult tyrannies of those blandly saluting clocks I had been mysteriously handcuffed to history, my destinies indissolubly chained to those of my country." 

My imitation:

In my family, Thanksgiving is a...quiet affair. No, that's not enough, there's no getting away from the details: In my family, my parents and I spend Thanksgiving by ourselves. And what we do? That matters, too. So then: many things. No, I really must be more...going to New York City and Vermont, in fact. We've done so many things that I seem to have lost count. Oh, make it clear, make it clear: because the break is too short, we've never been to my grandmother's house for Thanksgiving. I hear the gasps of horrified familial conservatives. And, nearby them, people murmuring in confusion. I understand your confusion; but the lost time spent with my grandmother pales in comparison to the various Thanksgivings that we've had, because thanks to the fact that we're not obligated to visit family, we've had all kinds of extraordinary experiences.

War Speeches Comparison

Although World War II was a time in which many speeches were written and made, three stand out in particular: "Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose" by Joseph Goebbels, "Jewel Voice Broadcast" by Emperor Hirohito, and "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat" by Winston Churchill. Each represents a very different kind of speech: Goebbels was trying to reinvigorate the nation's morale after the stunning loss of the German attack on Stalingrad, Emperor Hirohito was trying to resign his nation to the fact that Japan had surrendered to the allies, and Churchill was issuing a call-to-arms to both motivate the nation to fight the war and prepare it for the utter turmoil that it would bring to all who lived there. However, there are many common claims, themes, and rhetorical devices in all of them. One of the most important--and revealing--devices that all three speakers use is hyperbole based on the fact that their nation is central to the perpetuated existence of mankind.

All three speeches make reference to the fact that, if his audience does not do what they ask, then the result will be the destruction of their nation and therefore of any meaningful human activity. Hirohito is the most dramatic in this sense, saying that should Japan continue to fight, not only would the nation itself be obliterated, but the rest of human civilization would as well. Goebbels is slightly less dramatic when he describes how unless the German army succeeds in defeating the Soviet Union, the entirety of Europe will have its culture destroyed by the invasion of Bolshevism (although he hints, making reference to America, that the "threat" of Bolshevism will spread elsewhere). Churchill is the least dramatic. He mentions how if they lose the war, the British way of life and everything that the empire stands for will be destroyed, then adds that mankind's desire to improve and "move through the ages" will also be destroyed as a direct result of this.

The important thing about this common theme is that all three of them are applying the same rhetorical tactic, apparently successfully, to vastly different situations with vastly different audiences. The British House of Commons, the Japanese populace, and the German people that Goebbels selected to hear his speech are all very different groups of people with very different values and assumptions, but somehow, they all respond to the idea that unless they act, unless they, as a nation, do something, then the very essence of what makes life worth living will be destroyed. Objectively, this idea seems ridiculous. Human initiative as a concept was not likely to be eradicated forever by the destruction of the British empire. Very wealthy and stable capitalistic economies were not likely to suddenly choose communism just because the Germans did not win the conflict with the Soviet Union. Nor was the destruction of the entire planet likely if Japan chose to seal its own fate and continue in its war with America. I think that the fact that the audiences of these speeches accepted these statements is very revealing both of the rhetorical genius of the speeches' authors and the prevailing sense of nationalism at the time. More than anything, I think that all three speeches prove that, by appealing to a group's sense of unity and differentiation from other groups, you can motivate that group to do or believe just about anything.

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are often presented as completely polarized philosophical figures. Thoreau is often thought of as selfless and ideological, or an angel crusading for justice, and Machiavelli is often thought of as entirely self-serving and uncaring for the feelings of or the plight of others, or a ruthless politician that only seeks to harm you in order to further his own goals. However, these thinkers are more similar than many people seem to think. True, Thoreau emphasizes self-sacrifice while Machiavelli emphasizes doing whatever one can to further one's goals, but the basis of their thinking is the same: behaving in a way that is beneficial to oneself.

Thoreau, in his essay "Civil Disobedience," (which has often been characterized as an anti-slavery essay), focuses surprisingly little on the goal of abolishing slavery as an institution. Rather, he focuses the majority of his energy on helping his audience understand why living in and contributing to the United States and therefore being complicit in the practice of slavery makes a person dishonorable. He characterizes prison as a place where "the State places those who are not with her but against her," and therefore "the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor." In this instance and throughout the text, Thoreau says that an individual's priority should not be to abolish slavery, but to "wash one's hand of it"--that is, to renounce any and all affiliations with it, not with the purpose of ending it, but to protect one's honor. Although this idea is noble in theory and many of us and our society could benefit from us adopting it as a principle, it is nevertheless a fundamentally selfish idea. Machiavelli's selfishness, on the other hand, is far less difficult to observe. The underlying theme of his text "The Prince," is, to put it simply, do whatever is the most expedient to the advancement of your goals. The key to this that is often overlooked is that the most expedient course of action is not always the most detrimental to one's constituents--whether it is harmful or helpful to the Prince's people doesn't matter to Machiavelli, so long as it protects the prince's power and therefore is beneficial to himself.

The main difference between Machiavelli and Thoreau, therefore, is what the end goal of their self-service is. Thoreau's end goal is moral success and a clean conscience--being a good person in the eyes of oneself and in the eyes of his God. Whether or not slavery is actually abolished is of secondary importance to the fact that he has washed his hands of it, is no longer complicit in it, and therefore has achieved his idea of morality and remains an honorable person. In contrast, Machiavelli's goal is to maintain power. It doesn't matter whether the people are happy or miserable, affluent or impoverished, war-torn or living in peace--so long as the prince has maintained his position of power through whatever the most expedient means are, then in Machiavelli's eyes, he has achieved his goals. The differences between Machiavelli and Thoreau, therefore, are not as extreme as they may seem.