The word choice in the beginning is so distictly violent as to not be ignored.  As a reader, we come across words like "curse", "sins" "infections", "dismal", "vampire", and "serpentine".  Clearly, these words are not to be mistaken for having positive conotations.  As an English major, I found this blunt, straightforward style to be striking because often I come across class readings that are metphorical, ironic, or layred in deep meaning.  This was almost refreshing to read because of the way in the intention was not at all misleading and really leaves litte to no room for interpretation.  I was unable to find a visual pattern to the way Blast was laid out.  Certain words or sections are bolded and large while others are small and in indented paragraphs.  I tried to look through for some reasoning behind the visual aspect but was unable to come up with anything.  Does anyone have any ideas on this?  

     While I cannot know this for certain, I think part of why the rhetoric is so violently constructed is to create a stark contrast bewteen the 'blast' section and the 'bless' section.  If there was not a very distinct line between the diction in one and the diction in the other, this effect of contrast could have been lost.  The writers have a clear idea of what they want to say and where they stand on issues and because of this there is little to know ambiguity in the the sections.  We go from seeing words like "pig", "bad", "complacent", and "fussiness" to seeing the word "bless" again and again with long lists of positively connotative images.  One part of this juxtaposition that stood out the most to me was the mention of humor in both the 'blast' and the 'bless' section.  The first time hour is mentioned, the publication says "Blast Humour quack english drug for stupidity and sleepiness.  Arch enemy of REAL".  Humor is portrayed as a negative thing, something to be looked down upon almost as a lesser thing.  Then, in the 'bless' section is it brought up again: "Bless English Humour it is the great barbarous weapon of the genius among races".  Once humor is an amusement of the Englishman, it is a wonderful, powerful, intelligent thing.  This contrast seems to make an agenda clear and makes for an interesting comparison.