A Rhetorical Analysis Of Censorship
The issue of censorship is a topic that has been debated for many decades and is still a timely argument in many conversations today. Censorship is in our daily lives today, from removing inappropriate language from songs and TV shows that are seen by the general public to removing more explicit books from a public library. In 1901, a writer from The Atlantic Monthly published an essay debating the issue of nude statues and if they should be shown in public settings, such as a park or an art museum. The author uses several rhetorical strategies to prove their point, including their tone throughout the article, and analogies to things that the general public will understand. In the article, the author uses a sarcastic tone to present his opinion about the issue at hand. With a sarcastic tone, they are mocking the counter argument and belittling the importance of censorship. When talking about the people who disapprove with statue in Pompeii due to its nude nature, they state that their “point of view is essentially different from that of the Roman of that earlier day” but then turns around in the next
…show more content…
For example, the sarcastic tone might make readers confused; making them think the author is actually for the opposite argument. Not all people can pick up on sarcasm easily, and the author did not address that in the article. But, the author makes up for this by adding his own personal opinions towards the end of the text that are very obvious in which side of the argument the writer took. Another flaw in the text is the invalidity of some of the analogies. The author seemed to ignore the fact that books are for a private person, and not everyone has to see what you read in a book unlike a statue, which is in the open for everyone to see. It can be argued though, that anyone can walk into a library and take whatever they want, no matter their
For example, the sarcastic tone might make readers confused; making them think the author is actually for the opposite argument. Not all people can pick up on sarcasm easily, and the author did not address that in the article. But, the author makes up for this by adding his own personal opinions towards the end of the text that are very obvious in which side of the argument the writer took. Another flaw in the text is the invalidity of some of the analogies. The author seemed to ignore the fact that books are for a private person, and not everyone has to see what you read in a book unlike a statue, which is in the open for everyone to see. It can be argued though, that anyone can walk into a library and take whatever they want, no matter their