At the end of her essay, Zadie Smith says, "In this lecture I have been seeking to tentatively suggest that the voice that speaks with such freedom, thus unburdened by dogma and personal bias, thus flooded with empathy, might make a good president" (192). Yet, immediately following she rejects this by preaching for the many-voices of her own people - the poets. In today's society, the rhetoric of a president and of a poet is more similar than one might think. The president must be able to speak to all of the country's people, if he accomplishes that best by having many voices, so be it. Smith says of Obama that he, "doesn't just speak for his people. He can speak them." (182). He puts on many voices speaking of, "Main Street in Iowa and of sweet potato pie in northwest Philly." (185). This putting on of voices though can be a bad thing. People start to question when, if ever, they are told the truth. If a president can play the role of both a urban philadelphian and small town farmer, who is he actually? What does he actually believe? What is actually trying to accomplish? The poet, on the other hand, is celebrated for having many voices. The best poets and writers are fluent in many tongues and can tell better stories and paint better pictures with these voices. The most accomplished poets have countless vernaculars up their sleeves, ready to pull any out at any given time.
Smith side steps around whether she thinks there should be a difference between the poet's and the president's voices. She seems to suggest that the idea is far off, yet she wishes it would happen. She wants the president to "speak with freedom" yet she knows the controversy it would cause. Smith sees the potential for presidents to use the language native to her - the language of a poet - yet she acknowledges the difficulty of this task.
No comments:
Post a Comment