Ambiguity In Literature Analysis

Ambiguity in literature is one of the many ways in which thought and reason sustain themselves. The existence of multiplicitous interpretation is the source of much debate and discussion, both of which are modes for the development of even more ideas. There are certain pieces of literature that are so equivocal in their nature that they remain relevant far longer than could possibly have been predicted. One such piece would be Thomas More’s Utopia. The debatability of this text revolves almost exclusively about the question of More’s intent when he created this fictional work. This question, in summary, is if More believed that the Utopia he describes is truly an ideal form of commonwealth. There’s a preponderance of supportable answers to

For example, within the Utopian society there is no such thing as private property. Land for agriculture is not owned by any singular individual or enterprise. Everyone shares the land, and the labor. Hythloday believes that this causes a bridge in the gap between the poor and the powerful, creating a situation of greater socio-economic equity. Literary More argues that this would instead facilitate the development of a lethargic population and, possibly, anarchy. Utopia also offers an antithesis to England’s approach to war. The Utopians purportedly loathe war. However, this doesn’t mean they are unable to defend themselves. They maintain a well trained standing army. Yet, they prefer to utilize tactics that, to the typical European mind (including the character More), are detestably cowardly. The fact of the matter is that Utopian would rather end a conflict through cunning means that minimize loss of life, such as assassination and propaganda. However, what is significant is that, even though both characters disagree in regards to the merits of Utopia’s solutions, they’re discussing solutions to problems that are reflected in More’s society. In these cases the problems happen to be the depressing chasm that existed between the wealthy aristocracy of England and the destitute majority, along with the English attitude and tendency

The most obvious manifestation of this is, conceivably, More’s use of wordplay throughout the narrative. The title itself, Utopia, stems from Greek, meaning “no-place”, but is also homophonic with the term Eutopia, which would mean “good-place”. The term Utopia would originally have been applied to any detailed, imaginary world. However, contemporarily the terms are interchangeable. The next greatest instance of More using a play on words in order to subtly undermines the perceived significance of Utopia is the name itself of the island nation’s biggest fan. Hythloday, from the Greek, means “speaker of nonsense”. If the objective was to establish the philosophy for a perfect society the author probably wouldn’t belittle the advocate for that society. For that matter, it seems unreasonable that a serious attempt at such a significant task would be undertaken in this way. Utopia is not a book of calculated logic, it’s not an instruction manual, nor is it even an exposition on the merits of Utopia. It’s written as a satiric narrative. More employed hyperbole and irony in order to criticize what he felt was a flawed society. Many of the jokes at the time it was written would have gone completely over the heads of the majority of its readers, given that very few of them would have been familiar with Greek. This