Stylistics analysis 1.docx

Miller 1

Dara MillerDr. SirlesENG 40814 April 2013Stylistic Analysis of Gore Vidals Drugs: Case for Legalizing MarijuanaIn Vidals controversial 1970 opinion piece for the New York Times, he argues that the American governments struggle to control drug use is tantamount to the ineffective and dangerous measures of the Prohibition movement. While he claims there is a simple solution for stopping most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time by legalizing drugs and providing consumers with specific warnings as to their effects, he also laments the possibility of this solution ever happening due to the bureaucratic machine that profits from the regulation of narcotics. Through varying his level of intimacy with his audience and building an increasingly cynical tone, Vidal develops a caustic censure of a government that is willing to exploit the business of sin and money at the expense of the rights our nation was founded upon.Vidal opens his argument casually, assuming his readers are already engaged in the dialogue he is participating in. He does not introduce his subject with any type of formal background on the issue of drug addiction in the United States, but rather skips right to his argument: It is possible to stop drug addictionwithin a very short time. He follows his claim with a series of imperative sentences outlining how this could be accomplished. By omitting the context of these sentences (e.g., his second sentence could read The Food and Drug Administration should make all drugs available) Vidal establishes a comfortable relationship with his audience and draws them into his debate. His diction is simple and familiar, and his use of contractions (Dont) and slang (difficult to kick) let his audience know that they share the same perspective and insight into the issue. Each sentence requires a nod in agreement, an acceptance that this will indeed require from those still outside this familiar understanding of the argument a heroic honesty. Vidal establishes his own authority to discuss this issue by stating that For the record, he has tried almost every drug although he liked none. This paragraph continues his conversational tone as he qualifies his experience with the reassurance to his readers that he has only tried each drug -- once -- and invokes the popular Fu Manchu theory that proclaimed all drugs instantly addicting. In the last sentence of this paragraph, however, his tone shifts into an odd mixture of casual and consultative tone. His diction becomes less familiar, but he still includes the readers in his perspective, implying that they, like he, are set apart from the certain people who need stricter warnings. Likewise, he folds his audience into his criticism of the government; it is the other people of our government who must be reminded about the origins of freedom in America. As the essay progresses, Vidals increasingly critical and sarcastic tone towards his subject matter corresponds to his use of a more formal consultative style. He occasionally draws the readers back into to conversation through parenthetical statements, but by the fifth paragraph he begins shifting styles on almost a line-by-line basis; although shifts away from audience inclusion as he begins with Now one can hear the warning rumble begin, he moves once again into the casual by then including us and we, and invites his audience to share in his sardonic contemplation of what he sees as unlikely chain of reactions with Alarming thought. Throughout the rest of the essay, Vidal contrasts consultative, almost formal sentences with casual ones, making his argument seem both professional and detached and yet simultaneously personal and engaging. Logical, qualified statements, such as Every man, however, has the power (and should have the right) to kill himself if he chooses, are followed by the almost crude But since most men dont, they wont be mainliners either. Vidals contrasting styles ultimately echo the contrast he sees between the sensible solution to Americas drug problem and the actions of American policymakers who work for their own bureaucratic interests rather than the good of the people. Like the combination of sin and money, this shifting style is irresistible, and serves to draw the readers full support for his position.