




Do you have a brother or a sister? Have you ever compared yourself to them to see how you were the same or how different you were? Maybe some of your similarities came from influences, like your parents or school. Contrary to that, some of your differences may have been developed from the friends or the activities to participate in. Writing can be just as easily compared. Many things influence writers, such as time period, experiences, and style. After reading “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift, and “I Am Sorry That I Didn’t Write A Comedy Piece” by Wendy Molyneux, I discovered a few similarities and differences. Swift writes in the 18th century about problems with his country’s governmental policies, while Molyneux writes about the stereotypes of women. Although at first sight there seems to be little in common between the two, I would argue differently. After carefully inspecting the two pieces I learned about their differences, their similarities, and how both of these stories work together in identifying a social injustice and trying to correct it.

“A Modest Proposal” and “I Am Sorry That I Didn’t Write A Comedy Piece”, have many similarities, but there are some fundamental differences that affect the overall message of the writings. First there are the obvious differences, the concrete differences. The most obvious of the differences is the authors. The author of “A Modest Proposal” is a male, while the author of “I Am Sorry That I Didn’t Write A Comedy Piece” is a female. Some may say this is a miniscule detail, but when we look at the time period each is set in the difference becomes magnified. Swift wrote his piece in 1728, a time in which women had the inability to express their opinions without being harassed. Contrary to that, Molyneux wrote her piece in 2009, a perfect time for her to voice her opinion. After taking a deeper look into the text I discovered a major difference, the way each author approached his or her satire. Swift uses an absurd claim to catch the attention of his readers. He writes statements such as, “A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially winter” (516).  On the other hand, Molyneux uses stereotypes to bring forth her argument. She shows this by using phrases like, “So I put down my giant chocolate bar, stopped crying, and thought, yes, that is what I will do” (521). When Swift uses his statements he attracts the reader, but later lays down what he would actually like to change. Molyneux does the opposite. She uses words and phrases that are the problem. Each time she brings up a stereotypical act of women she brings up something that she believes is wrong with society. Although the two of these pieces argue in a similar way there are some few fundamental and structural differences that allow for different reactions to each.

Although a few differences arise in these two writings, there are more similarities than differences throughout the two pieces. The most obvious of the similarities is the style. Both of these pieces are satirical which allows for a lighter approach to a more serious issue. Swift’s ridiculous claims of the country’s people catch the attention of readers. If they believe it, they read on to obtain more information on the situation. If they don’t believe it they read on as a form of entertainment. Molyneux’s piece is similar, in style, except for her usage of stereotypes as a median of comedy. Another similarity of the two writings is their purpose. First and foremost, the two of these pieces are in response to something they did not like. Molyneux writes in response to Christopher Hitchens, who she calls, “a huge douche who runs a successful child pornography business and has an inability to get an erection unless he’s reading Nazi literature” (523). This statement itself is hilarious. I believe that lines like this were here main motivation in writing this piece. I believe that she wanted to show that women can be and are funny. Similarly, Swift writes in opposition to the acts of the parliamentary. His main argument is contained within the following statement, “Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: of using neither cloaths nor, nor household furniture…” (519). In this point, after Swift finishes his claims of baby eating and selling, Swift’s want for change becomes obvious. Although the two stories may have different approaches, they are both very similar because they have found something wrong and want it to change. This similarity is big enough, but I believe that there is more to this iceberg than what appears.

Although these two pieces were published 281 years apart, the idea and motivation behind them are nearly identical. Both pieces recognized a social injustice and decided to write about them to prove points. Swift writes in response to the government, while Molyneux writes in response to Christopher Hitchens. Why is this so important? Because the two authors are taking actions to something they believe is wrong. Many people see something is wrong or oppressive, but only have strong opinions about the issue; seldom do they act on the problem. When a piece of mind is published in writing a ripple effect is created. Both Molyneux and Swift have concrete evidence to what they believe is wrong, and by writing, this information becomes readily available. Once the information is available it is transmitted throughout the population. This makes the opinion of each of the writers amplified.

Over two centuries separate these two pieces, but there are many ties between them. Although Molyneux writes on women’s roles and their abilities to write comedies, and Swift writes about the government taking advantage of their power, the reason that powers the two is nearly identical. At first sight there is not much to compare, but after taking a closer look I was able to notice the differences, similarities, and the reasoning behind their writings.