Only Human

The book begins by stating the "problem". He introduces the Blacklist and immediately follows it with the image of a man beating his wife.

Merely one page into this book I could tell that it was very easy to sympathize with the writer. I liked him, he had a charming way with words and made me feel comfortable with my own flawed humanity by describing his own ( Goodness knows I have found myself undressed at a window and caught a disapproving eye from a neighbor before). He then immediately invoked my pity, by giving details, unfettered by theatricality, about how this problem of the Blacklist has affected him. By page four I can start to see how everyone else is the enemy, he describes a former coworker that will not speak to him as "angry at me for doing this to him". He has successfully categorized himself as a victim in my mind.

I start to realize the more that I read it how much it reminds me of a play called Aunt Dan and Lemon. The play begins with a character that seems genuinely likable, whose beloved aunt discusses a problem, and then relays a story that generates pity. At the end of the play, I read the final monologue and felt that I truly understood the place where the character was coming from and sympathized. That is, until I realized I had just a read a monologue explicitly affirming the actions of the Nazis and pure "human nature".

Of course we are going to read a story like this and side with the writer, we hear his voice only and he has control over how much we sympathize. The reason propaganda has proved so incredibly useful is because words and images that give a singular voice to any topic have incredible sway over the mind and opinion. The fact that we have a figure of authority ( our professor) requiring the reading is a kind of endorsement that gives even greater power to that sway.

This very principle is the principle that gives validity to the idea of censorship in the media. If what we see, read, or hear had such a large affect on our views when mass produced and made readily available, the government has the right to sway the people towards the ideals that will enable them to protect themselves against the threat of an undesired social system.

Yes when given a voice, it is only human to sympathize with one man's struggle, but pick up any book written by someone who's life has been made a living hell by an oppressive communism government and you would have the very same response.

( While I think there is some validity in these statements I really do not agree with the overall argument presented. I wanted to see if I could use the way I truly felt about the text to render a counter argument against my own opinion)