Zadie Smith uses the motif of honesty in representative art to expose Howard’s failure to meet the ethical standards he promotes in his lectures. A lot of the art that Howard writes and thinks about is known for its realism; Rembrandt in particular was celebrated for his ability to accurately represent texture and form.
Monty and Howard can’t agree on anything, but the situation gets worse when Kipps publishes an article about Howard in the Wellington school paper. The author uses situational and dramatic irony in this passage to reveal the contradictions in Monty Kipps’s supposed defense of intellectual fairness at Wellington.
Unlock with LitCharts A+Two days ago Kipps had argued strongly against Howard’s Affirmative Action committee in the Wellington Herald. He had criticized not only its aims but challenged its very right to existence. He accused Howard and ‘his supporters’ of privileging liberal perspectives over conservative ones; of suppressing right-wing discussion and debate on campus. The article had been a sensation, as such things are in college towns.
The author uses metaphor and situational irony in this passage to show how Victoria misunderstands Howard’s teaching. She describes her understanding of his class using a metaphor that she believes proves her intellectual seriousness:
Unlock with LitCharts A+‘But your class – your class is a cult classic. I love your class. Your class is all about never ever saying I like the tomato. That’s why so few people take it – I mean, no offence, it’s a compliment. They can’t handle the rigour of never saying I like the tomato. Because that’s the worst thing you could ever do in your class, right? Because the tomato’s not there to be liked. That’s what I love about your class. It’s properly intellectual. The tomato is just totally revealed as this phoney construction that can’t lead you to some higher truth – nobody’s pretending the tomato will save your life.”