B&A Writers: Who is more to be pitied?

The one with nothing to say.

If you have something to say, you have a soul. If you have nothing to say, I don't see the point in existing.

The first, to a little extent. I don't know the circumstances in which he was caught by policemen. He could very well deserve it for committing a serious crime. Or perhaps he's innocent. I wouldn't assume. Either way, I would pity him. I pity all people who grow up to commit crimes/do awful things. It makes me wonder what led them to such a lifestyle.

The second presents nothing for me to pity. To me, "who has nothing more to say" could also be "who has said everything he had to say." Pitying that would be like pitying someone who's just finished a novel. That's an accomplishment, not a tragedy! ;D Also, it may just be a period of time that the second has nothing to say. I'm sure all people have moments where they don't have anything more to add to a conversation, writing piece, etc.

By the way, I only used 'he' because it was easier than writing "he/she" over and over.

I agree with the first answerer. To be oppressed is far more pitiable than to be void of thought. If a person has nothing further to say then they aren't suffering. The person who suffers is the one suppressed to the point where they cannot express themselves. I pity the one who suffers the most.

If you assume they are both suffering then I still pity the former on principle alone. The latter had an opportunity to express themselves and relieved that need whereas the former didn't. So I think the writer who is censored/oppressed/controlled is more sympathetic than the writer who expressed all that they wanted to up to a given time.

Just because people have nothing more to say doesn't mean they're void of a soul. Some people only have one book/story in them, for instance. That doesn't make them any less or more deserving than someone who has multiple stories in them. It only means that they are more contented individuals overall if they had so little to express. It's usually those who suffered most that have more to say because they observed more and will then have more to offer in their views.

I would pity a philosopher over a clone any day and an unhappy person over a happy one. Who's happily oppressed? No one.

I agree with David. At least the former has a goal, something to fight for: freedom. The latter has nothing to contribute to the world and as David said, I don't really see the point of existing if you have nothing to say.

~Soph xx

I don't see anything pitful about being bound and gagged by a policeman. Sounds like a good time to me ;)

The former because he doesn't have the chance to express himself. The latter has had his say and is free. There is nothing to pity in that.