I'm credible, I swear!

"The object of this volume is to assist persons who, while desiring to gain a more definite idea of the social contrasts between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, are daunted by the formal aspect of the histories which treat the subject." (Preface)

Here, Bellamy has Dr. Leete establish the narrative as "historically accurate"; vouching for the credibility not only of Mr. West, but the ideology promoted within. This is a much different approach than Twain's framing in A Connecticut Yankee. Where Twain's layering created ambiguity regarding the narrator's reliability, Bellamy seems to go out of his way to establish his narrator as someone who's perspective we can rely on.

Is this an effective ploy? Personally, I feel that if an author takes such strident attempts, I become concerned that his story would not be taken seriously on its own. If I have to *tell* you to take me seriously, that implies that you won't do so naturally. But then, perhaps this is just personal bias.

While Mr. West does seem to be a bit more reliable than Morgan (what with him not being bent on world domination), that does not necessarily mean we take him more seriously. West seems to be a bit more passive in his environment, content on just skipping merrily along in his new paradise; but such an enthusiasm would shape how he tells his tale. Such "enthusiasm" is bound to shade his re-telling just as much as Morgan's ego shaped his.

Perhaps, 'shade' isn't the correct word though, since Bellamy is pretty blatant with his exposition; the only way the author's social/political point could be made more obvious is if he put it in ALL CAPS.

Obviously, I have mixed feelings about these stylistic practices.