Historically, laziness and indolence have been considered traits of aggravation and annoyance. Concepts like the “Protestant work ethic” and the “Alger myth” have long glorified the merits of perseverance, shunning apathy as a philosophy condemning one to regret and suffering. Christopher Morley, however, takes exception to this premise in his 1920’s essay, “On Laziness”. In his article, Morley uses unique rhetorical techniques to assert that laziness is actually the key to satisfaction, claiming that industriousness and exertion cause more resentment than fulfillment. In order to convincingly propose such a radical contrast to societally accepted ideas, Morley employees a unique tone and format, structuring his essay deliberately in order to make his …show more content…
Morley employs extremely informal words like “quibble”, “hubbub”, and “”bumptious” among his typically academic vocabulary to create a more easygoing, informal writing style. The contrast of such verbiage with Morley's sophisticated vernacular can even almost be considered a parody of traditional scholarly style. This imbues the essay with a “casually droll” tone and makes Morley’s arguments seem less serious and radical, enabling the reader to approach his arguments from a more accepting viewpoint and overlook any extremist interpretations as mere over exaggeration for satirical effect. Morley's second person point of view is also used for a very similar purpose, meant to belie the traditional scholarly style of third person in favor of a relaxed and casual tone. Morley goes to great lengths in order to subdue his controversial assertions into more humorous and casual contexts in order to excuse the more radical portions of his premise as hyperbolization. This “satiricalization” of his argument allows the main idea, the premise of sloth as positive in one’s life, to still be argued without seeming