Seminar Paper

Joseph Addison in ‘The Spectator’ 1712

So having read the article it seems Addison is primarily concerned with a few major things. Mostly his ‘rant’ if you will seems to be about style of writing and most importantly, the methodical construction of a discourse. He makes clear the distinction between his creative writing, referred to as his ‘Wild compositions which go by the name of Essays’ and his Daily Papers he bestows on the public, written with regularity and method.

He generally makes the point that for his daily papers he tends to have considered his entire plan for the discourse before writing, so that when ink touches paper it has an orderly flow of ideas and argument which can be conveyed and understood easily.

He then carries on his discussion with the reader by giving an example of an associate of his who does not write or even discuss in tongue with flow or practice, and who in fact seems to be, as Addison refers to him, “one of the most Eminent Immethodical Disputants of any that has fallen under my Observation”.

This man is Tom Puzzle, who Addison explains is supposedly a learned man, but not so much so that he can explain and eradicate any doubts or holes in his lecturing about issues of the world or common concerns on the home front amongst such topics of unreasonableness of bigotry and priest-craft. Addison explains that “This makes Mr. Puzzle the Admiration of all those who have less Sense than himself, and the Contempt of those who have more.”

Addison then continues on to talk about his friend and associate Will Dry, another most learned man aligned with Addison in the sense of producing what is to be considered a ‘good discourse’, and he explains how Tom Puzzle is fearful of him because of Mr. Dry’s tendency to break his arguments with simple questions, or when Mr. Puzzle is running off a question asked of him, Mr. Dry simply responds with a “what then?” which stops Puzzle dead in his talks.

Having listened to this as a fairly narrative description of what we have read then, I invite you to discuss what you think about Addison’s work as a form of journalism, how interesting it is and the ideas it raises, and what his criticisms of Puzzle say about approach to writing at the time, and the importance of accuracy and conformity in writing.

Was there a strict social rigidity when it came to producing work? (Taking into consideration all the philosophical discussions we have already had about thinking and learning and knowing)

Was there a need to prove oneself as an established writer by having work published rather than lending talent to the art of discussion?

Can we see many similarities to Addison’s general argument today? How often do newspapers or more specifically, individuals in newspapers i.e. columnists critique writing rather than current events? (Though I guess book reviews are a prime example of this)