People who are uncomfortable in themselves are often disagreeable to others, despite having many qualifications to recommend them. This lack of success is primarily due to their manner and unsociable state of feeling. The mind is a finer instrument than they think, and it is instinctive to feel the air of truth. Many people a person spend time with have no faults, but they are never thoroughly satisfied with them because they are constantly uneasy and out of sorts.
In this essay, the author discusses the concept of friendly grievances, which are people who do not feel grateful for the kindness they receive. They are often low-spirited and disappointed, focusing on appearances rather than genuine empathy. These people are known for their meddlesome humour, superiority, and patronizing of others’ infirmity. They are constantly reminding others of past mistakes and are not satisfied with the happiness they bring. The author argues that these people are not agreeable, as they depress and tyrannise over their feelings. They may assist in various aspects of life, such as nursing, arguing, or obtaining loans, but they are only interested in rubbing the sore place and highlighting mental or other disorders. They are not a true friend, as the old proverb “A friend in need is a friend indeed” is not verified in them. The author compares these people to summer friends who court and flatter others’ vanity, never see or allude to anything wrong, and smooth over every difficulty. They are not genuinely concerned with the well-being of others and are not willing to take leave if they encounter any unpleasant situations. The text ends with a metaphor of a burnished fly singing a song, soothing the throng and then flying away to wing his mazy round.
The essay then describes the negative impact of certain individuals on others, highlighting their lack of frankness, social enjoyment, and a dry, grating manner. These individuals have great knowledge and anecdotes, but their dry, husky, and grating matter-of-factness makes it difficult to sympathize with their discourse. To make conversation interesting, one must either adopt the habitual tone of good company or the warmth and enthusiasm of genius. The literal and dogged style of conversation resembles a French picture, while its mechanical fidelity is like evidence in a court of justice or a police report.
The transition from literal to plain-spoken is easy, as truth is the most effective weapon of offense. Those who deal in dry and repulsive matters tire out their friends, while those who blurt out hard and home truths make themselves mortal enemies. There are blunt, honest creatures who omit the opportunity of letting you know their minds and are sure to tell you all the ill and conceal all the good they hear of you. Gossips and tale-bearers, on the contrary, are welcome and agreeable guests in all companies. They are better pleased with falsehoods that never reach your ears than with the truths that others (less complaisant and more sincere) utter to your face. Many people avoid professions that have the air of not being convinced without argument, as they think that this pill of true doctrine is full of gall and bitterness to them. Plain-speaking is nine parts in ten, spleen and self-opinion, and the other part, perhaps, honesty. People are more averse to contradiction than dogmatists, and there is no flattery so adroit or effectual as that of implicit assent.
The author argues that books that challenge common sense and set facts against it are not considered “volumes that enrich the shops” or “books that bring their authors immortal fame.” They are often criticized and oblivious to the public, leaving their names in their original obscurity. Conversely, some books are popular due to their focus on pleasing and not offending, allowing for wit and wisdom to coexist. The author compares Walton’s Angler to a book that dallies with the innocence of thought. Hobbes and Mandeville are the opposite extreme, while Tatler and Spectator are in the golden mean. The author also highlights the importance of being on good terms with oneself and having high humour in their roles.
According to the author, people who enjoy the disagreeable often find pleasure in the uncouth tones and gestures of others, aiming for vulgarity as desperately as they do. They find it amusing and fillip to their constitutions, and despising everything that is not refined or agreeable. Masculine women, for example, are those who abandon all decorum and aspire to superiority over others. Another class, governed by an instinct of absurdity, constantly do and say what they ought not to do and do not intend. The degree of pleasure or pain people feel in ordinary social intercourse determines their agreeableness. People enjoy a friend’s society in proportion to their satisfaction with their own. Even wit is only agreeable if it is sheathed in good-humour. Small wits are not the least agreeable people in the world, enjoying their little jokes and enjoying the company. On the other hand, swaggering bullies, licensed wits, free-thinkers, and loud talkers are unseemly exposed of the mind and body. Some objects that shock the sense and offend the mind should be kept out of sight as much as possible. Lord Byron, for example, dedicated his Cain to Sir Walter Scott, a pretty godfather to such a bantling.
Some people are so teasing and fidgety that they do not give you a moment’s rest and everything goes wrong with them. They complain of a headache or the weather, take up a book again and retract it before half-doing, offer to serve you, and prevent others from doing it. They are out of sorts with everything and communicate their ill-humor and captiousness to you. Another type of person is those who have everything their own way, always in the heat of an argument, and seem to resent the very offer of resistance to their supposed authority. They indulge in a domineering intellectual superiority, disregarding and discomfiture of their own and everyone else’s comfort. They trample on every courtesy and decency of behavior, and they cannot be acquitted of a want of due consideration for others and an intolerable egotism in the support of truth and justice. People who cannot make friends are those who cannot be friends. They have no understanding or good-nature, and they are neither the better nor worse for what you think of them. They manifest no joy at your approach and when you leave them, it is with a feeling that they can do just as well without you. They live in society as in a solitude, and their cool manner in which the whole is done annoys you. In summary, some people are not good friends, but their lack of understanding, good-nature, and common decency can be frustrating.
People of worth and sense often succumb to violence of temperament, leading to a state of uncertainty and apprehension. They may never approach you with alarming advice or information, or give you to understand something as a joke out of impertinence and a lack of something to say. These people are disagreeable, and you repay their over-anxiety or forgetfulness by determining to cut them as quickly as possible. People brought up in remote country places, with sectaries and partisans of a losing cause, are generally discontented and disagreeable. Catholics are generally more amiable than Protestants and foreigners than English people. The Scotch, as a nation, are particularly disagreeable, hate every appearance of comfort themselves and refuse it to others. Their climate, religion, and habits are equally averse to pleasure. Their manners are either distinguished by a fawning sycophancy or a morose, unbending callousness. Some people are disagreeable from meanness of spirit, downright insolence, slovenliness of dress, disgusting tricks, folly or ignorance, but these causes are positive moral or physical defects. The amiable is the voluptuous in looks, manner, or words, and no face that exhibits this kind of expression will be considered ugly or awkward. Diffidence and awkwardness are the two antidotes to love.
According to the author , to please universally, one must be pleased with oneself and others, with a tinge of coxcomb, self-complacency, and anticipation of success. However, it is impossible for naturally disagreeable individuals to become otherwise. The maxim “desperate to please, and you will infallibly please” is true, but it is not in the power of all to practice it. A vain man who thinks he is striving to please is only striving to shine, while an irritable man who puts a check on himself only grows dull and loses spirit. Good temper and a happy turn of mind can be commanded by good health and looks, but the utmost a disagreeable person can do is to hope and study to become less disagreeable and pass unnoticed in society.
One Reply to “Summary of William Hazlitt On Disagreeable People”