In the first chapter of the Gandhi Reader, entitled Critique of Modern Civilization, the views of Gandhi are portrayed in an interview style between a reader and an editor. I feel that this style of writing is effective but confusing. I was pretty much reading an entire conversation between two people, and because of the style, I became very confused and disoriented about the text I was reading. The drawn out question answer session became boring and hard to follow. It almost seems that the editor and the reader were going at each other, and even though conflict grabs peoples attention, it drew me away from the what the important facts were.
The main focus, as the title suggests, was the critique of modern civilization. The editor seems to me, to be pretty much complaining about everything going on. It's good to have pride in one's country, but I feel that the pride the editor is showing is prejudice.
I mean, the editor talks about home-rule, or swaraj, and how he is a total believer of it. Swaraj is a good principle, but I feel that one country, alone, being independent, is not a great equation for success. Take in America's case, our push for independence was based a lot on the feeling of nationality. But if it was not for the British, and its influences, America would not be like it is today. For instance, Congress is based on British Parliament. With out outside influences, a countries views may not be as broad as they would if they would have been weathered and altered because of other views of other nations.
The editor portrays himself as almost hateful toward England. In Part 5, the editor continuously bashes England, its people, and its ways. He describes Parliament as a baby,