More And Congreve Character Analysis

856 Words4 Pages
Similarly to More and Congreve, Melick finds comfort in his ignorance and is quite hostile to differing takes. De Mille describes Melick as “a litterateur”, whom alike to Congreve, proceeds to decipher the manuscript through the expertise he is familiar with (99). Yet, naysayers will state that Melick exemplifies an accurate interpretation of the novel as “a satirical romance” that mocks society; nevertheless, that is not the problem with Melick (De Mille 245). The issue that confounds Melick is his neediness to belittle and ridicule the remarks of his companions. After Congreve’s long and tedious explanation of “polar day”, Melick ridicules Congreve by giving him a glass of wine and remarking “after all those statistics… you must feel rather…show more content…
Being comfortable in one’s own ignorance and hostile to changing one’s view does not allow an individual to correctly interpret the world around them. More is comfortable in his ignorance and pushes criticality aside to never question the world. Evidently, Congreve and Melick are similar, as when Featherstone halts the narrative at the moment More and Almah conquer the world keenly alike to colonialism, there is no more debating or questioning of the manuscript, since Congreve and Melick are familiar with colonialism; thus, they will not question it (De Mille 281). Plato’s allegory of the cave is present throughout the novel for each character, as in the literal sense, More enters the Kosekin’s world “like a blind man” unable to see in the darkness alike to the released prisoner having difficulty in the light (De Mille 110; 317-20). Figuratively, the limitations of each creates blindness, as their comfort in their ignorance, hostility, stubbornness, and inflexibility causes them to be blind to everything unfamiliar, including different expertise’s or cultures that challenge their view of the world. Consequently, it is clear what De Mille constitutes as skillful reading; a person who does not fall into the same trap of others in society, in which thoughtful consideration of what truly is real favours over
Open Document