Hunt argues that the rise of the epistolary novel allowed individuals to build empathy, which created a growth in human rights. I agree with Hunt in sense that identification and empathy with others – especially those of different backgrounds – are essential in understanding human rights. I have personally felt the ‘post-book blues’ that Hunt highlights through the words of Diderot: “I felt the same sensation that men feel who have been closely entwined and lived together for a long time and who are now on the point of separating. At the end it suddenly seemed to me that I was left alone.” We all share universal human experiences, and I believe that novel reading allows readers to feel a sense of empathy through passionate involvement in the narrative.
Where I respectfully disagree, is with Hunt’s argument that the epistolary novel “laid the foundation for a new political and social order.” Through novel reading, the ruling elite may empathize with fictional characters of lower social standing, but I am critical of how this translates into action against injustice. The empathy that readers experience is passive, therefore I am not fully convinced that the perspective gained through novel reading is enough to drive large-scale social change and advancement of human rights.