To conclude her essay, Zadie Smith discloses: “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). However, she rejects this claim by advocating for the many-voiced role of the poet. What is the difference between the rhetoric of a president and that of a poet? Does Smith suggest there should be a difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment