Hazlitt Essay (Half-Term HWK)

Well ladies and gentlemen, it seems the time for another essay has reared it’s head, for then it to run from me. But before I get any more sidetracked with the current proceedings, this essay’s existence as well as my attention here is to answer one question: Do I agree if “On the Pleasure of Hating” is a text meant to be taken seriously. Enough with the formalities, let’s begin.

Okay, first of all; What is up with Hazlitt’s style of how he addresses you, and the rest of humanity in On the Pleasure of Hating? Oh what’s that Hazlitt? You are saying that we enjoy watching people suffer around us? It’s what keep us from turning stagnant  Mr.Hazlitt? Well I think I find myself being more interested in reading a great big wall of text on a forum that scooping out a man’s eyeballs and watching him bump blindly into walls. Is this what you want to imply? We relish within the pain of other creatures? Oh why yes, reading over the Ebola Crisis in Africa was quite the laugh I tell you good sir. It was a very hearty chuckle seeing all those people died with minimal chance of survival, I tell you. we aren’t animals Hazlitt, what gives you any authority to just say that? After all, your just speaking to use through paper, or through a massive block of text on a monitor, How would you convey what ever sick little message you want to let out of some random person you don’t even know from a hole in the ground. So Hazlitt, what is your deal exactly? Is it because you have finally realised your misanthropic ways? Is that why you hate yourself? Because you spite and burn people you have absolutely connections or views about? What a fine man you are. Next time, go ahead and spite someone you DO know, that way you might actually win, although I highly doubt your chances a very improbable. Oh wait, you already did that didn’t you with your “friends”? Speak of the devil. Who is free from your wrath? No even people you share a friendship can survive your cold, scorching words. How very quaint. Who here wonders how it must be to be friends with you? Hell, might has well put the term friend in quotation marks, because how can you even be sure if you are his friend if he just makes casual passing comments like:

“Ah yes, my good friend Mr.Burke! How might you be doing today?”

“Quite fine myself Mr.Hazlitt, how about you?”

“Oh nothing too much, but something hit me while I was writing a column piece last night…”

“Oh? Do tell; What was this thought about?”

“How you lack a heart and soul, you monster.”

You are putting the social failures of Autism to SHAME Mr.Hazlitt, utter SHAME. If that was the context you want to imply, then I applaud your efforts Mr.Hazlitt, but I applaud them with a slow, unsavoury bitter clap than to rather go wild at someone winning a massive competition or being declared a winner, but rather something akin to a slow applaud to someone making a stupid statement or realizing the obvious and piecing things together that had been discovered several minutes ago by everyone else in the room. Sorry Hazlitt, nobody is pointing that out to you in the middle of that explanation you missed by spiting the person sitting to your immediate left in that Mathematics class room rather than taking time to actually listen to the explanation at hand. But yet I wonder…Why does Hazlitt enjoy hating people so much, trying to make them feel bad? It’s quite vexing in context and thought, however, if you give it some thought, the answer could come to fruition.

Now then, as some may or may not know, Hazlitt uses what a known as a Vituperative Writing style. The general basis or idea of Vituperative writing comes from provoking a reaction from the reader or audience in question. While Vituperative writing is a delicate style and trade in writing, if handled correctly, is a very effective way of gathering a large audience. But in Hazlitt’s case, why use this style? Why poke fun at the audience? Is it because he wants a reaction? Is it because he requires attention for god knows what reason? Well, I’d say the first theory is most likely the one to be the case. The reasoning behind it, is behind what Vituperative writing can accomplish: It’s risky. You could provoke or induce hate. If you handle it correctly, you can get a very fruitful and large audience. The reason why Hazlitt wants to annoy you, is because its just how his trade of writing dictates it’s victory, and needless to say, back in the old days and still even now, writing columns is a very difficult business, as of such it falls down to some of the most skilled Essayists to accomplish such a feat, but Hazlitt uses Vituperative writing to further his agenda of Essayist style, and to expand upon his audience and bring in new batch of readers to his work. But enough of analyising, it’s time for the REAL question at hand. Should Hazlitt’s use of Vituperative writing actually be taken seriously? Well, as I previously stated; Hazlitt’s way of communication regarding his opinions and such are nothing more than words of a piece of paper, or a wall of text. Someone writing to you, and someone speaking to you are two very different things. And I don’t think a dead man can rise from his grave to keep shoving his opinions about you being heartless as a torturer down your throat now can he? So really, I don’t think Hazlitt’s style should be taken TOO seriously. Yes, it’s still someone poking at you with anger, but it’s not like they are yelling it down your ear. If you feel uncomfortable about what ever the hell Hazlitt or some other writer is blabbing on about, don’t be stupid. Don’t take yourself down to their level, just put down the newspaper, and go watch some cat videos or whatever you people watch now these days.

So, for overall: I don’t think what Hazlitt says shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Yes, there are some offensive things said, but still. It’s just a booklet or paper. So, to end this off, I don’t think Hazlitt’s style of writing should be taken seriously.