1. What is the author arguing?
H.L Mencken is arguing that William Jenning Bryan was an ignorant man who had bad intentions. That Bryan couldn't acknowledge new theories and views. Mencken had a lot of bad things to say about Bryan. Mencken questioned Bryan's actions and if his actions weren't sincere. Mencken also argues about how Bryan was able to relate to country people easier and was disliked by city people.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Mencken appeals ethos when he said, "The truth is that even Bryan's sincerity will probably yield to what is called, in other fields, definitive criticism." It really shows what himself/others thought of Bryan. Mencken made it seem that, that's how the majority of people felt about Bryan. Mencken makes Bryan seem like a really unintelligent man that made all the wrong decisions.
He questions all of Bryans decisions by asking if Bryan made the right decision when he impposed imperialism in the Philippines, shoved Prohibitionists under the table, betraying Clark, etc. Mencken even talked about Bryan's funeral and how there wasn't anything significant to say about Bryan. The things people said were very cliche and just nice words because he died, not because he was a great man. (Logic) Then Mencken appeals pathos by giving a more personal opinion when he says that Bryan lived too long. Mencken gives off the vibe of disgust aboout Bryan. Mencken makes you really feel like Bryan really is the bad guy.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical signicance of the the document is that it's about the Scopes Trial in 1925. Which is Scopes vs. Tennessee. Bryan was against the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin to be taught in school. It significant because it shows how one trial could change the whole future. If the trial was different, and different sides were taken, our beliefs today could be completely different.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
In ways I find this argument convincing. But I find it very hard to pick Mencken's side because he was very rude. He critisized majoirty of Bryan's actions. Though Bryan and Mencken have completely different views, I believe both had very good information and reasoning to back up their own views. In my opinion, one view wasn't better than the other. The one thing I agree with Mencken on is what he said about Bryan, "He couldn't be president, but he could at least help magnificently in the solemn business of shutting off presidency from every intelligent and self-respecting man."
P.S. This article was a little confusing, so correct me if I'm wrong with any of the parts I wrote about.
It is very apparent that Mencken had a very negative insight of Bryan, and seems like he was attacking him while being coy about his background. Mencken did not agree with Bryan's ideas, and felt that he was unfit to be president and felt that Bryan’s ideals were not ideals that America could support or effectively move forward with. Since Bryan was a country man, and his life was simplistic, it seems that Mencken used it against him not to describe who Bryan was but to make fun and attack him with using his “rural’ ideas against him. I think Mencken’s main point was to expose Bryan and to show America that the country couldn’t thrive on “rural” ideas but needed to thrive on ideas from the cities and perhaps the central government. It is very clear that Mencken’s opinion was biased and he obviously felt that people from the city were better in every aspect and that their ideals would move America forward. It was very cruel and harsh that Mencken tried to make a mockery of Bryan by making fun of Bryan for being a part of “rural” America.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. I agree that Mencken was arguing that Bryan was not as good of a man as others may have thought of him. Mencken describes Bryan as “a charlatan, a mountebank, a zany without shame or guilt”. This shows how much Mencken disliked Bryan since he refused to acknowledge the scientific theories of evolution, facts from other religions, and as what he describes as Bryan`s insincere actions. I agree with the logos you described the author is appealing to, your statements definitely can describe how others thought of Bryan. Especially how Mencken persuaded Darrow to enter the Scopes trial for the mere purpose of making a fool out of Bryan nationally, and the way he described Bryan leaving the Scopes trial “he staggered from the rustic court ready to die, and he staggered from it ready to be forgotten”. At the same time, with Bryan`s actions being labeled “insincere”, Mencken also stated that Bryan had hatred for the city men who had laughed at him for so long, which Bryan “lusted for revenge upon them”. This choice of words by the author shows that Bryan was portrayed as an imposter by many people, and a profit to the fundamentalists, and Christian people. Similarly, after Bryan`s death Mencken states “Well, we killed the son-of-a-bitch”, showing a lot of emotional (pathos) hatred for the man, and may have thought that him and Darrow`s quest to make a fool out of Bryan nationally had been completed. I personally do not agree with the author because Mencken and Darrow seem to dislike anyone who doesn’t believe in the same ideals as their own. Even though Bryan may have been looked at as insincere for imposing imperialism to the Philippines, or for shoving prohibitionists under the table, he was still looked at as a good man by many and did not deserve such harsh criticism even after his death. This document has a lot of historical significance since it refers to a time in history when Evolution was being nationally recognized as another way of explaining the creation of man and all living things.
ReplyDeleteGood analysis, I agree with you 100% that Mencken was rude and he degraded Bryan in a way to make him look bad. Not only that, but in the reading he did lots of knit picking at actions that seemed bad. He never told us the outcomes of what happened to each situation. The story seems to me to be very one sided and because it seemed to me that Mencken did not like Bryan. Therefore it's hard to find it convincing.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the statement, that he made it seem the majority of the people thought this. No, he even said he was well liked by the rural people. Even though he didn't really know anyone or clear understand the lifestyle of rural America at that time. He clearly wasn't liked by Mencken, as he makes this clear, it seems, in every word. I also don't believe if, indeed, they had lost the Scopes Trail, it wouldn't have changed America as a whole. The nation I don't believe wouldn't have ever accepted the act.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your responses to this reading. Mencken was adolescent about the way he handles things and put Bryan into an awful position. However the point that Mencken was trying to get across was that Bryan was not so smart so that’s why he said the things he did. This reading seemed like it was very self centered coming from Mencken’s side and that it was only a one sided situation. I think that the reading would be more interesting and the arguments would have been a lot more appealing if both the men had tried to understand and see the other person’s point of view.
ReplyDeleteCindy I agree that Mencken was confusing in his writing. It was abundantly clear, however, at the end that he meant to denigrate the life that W J Bryan had lead. Instead of amplifying the cohesion that he fanned in rural communities, he mocked Bryan for 'getting in the mud.' In place of flowery accolades about the uprightness of his life, he cast aspersions against his character impugning his life's work and intent. Mencken’s cowardice shred the image of a competitor in death because he lacked the boldness to do it in life.
ReplyDelete