If I had to describe The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk in one word it would be, Dramatic. SO DRAMATIC. After learning that basically non of the accounts given by Marie Monk was true it makes one wonder, why be so dramatic? The people who wrote this clearly where not huge fans of the Catholic church, but why did they have to go to such extremes as rape, torture, and drowning of babies? Why not just write about the things that they didn’t like about the Catholic church that where actually true? If they were going for a shock effect, they were definitely successful. There is no way someone could read this and not look at the Catholic Church differently. The images are something that probably stuck with the readers, long after the work was discredited. I think that that was kind of the point. The authors wanted people to have negative associations with the Catholic Church, even if they were preposterous. This way when people thought of the Catholic Church, they would automatically think of the horror stories they read in The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. Its kind of like in a court room when a lawyer says something about the defendants character and the entire jury hears, even when the judge says that it can’t count as evidence, the jury still has those words of the lawyer in the back of their heads. During the period this was written their was a great anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States. This work only served to confirm the people’s dislike for the Church. To answer my original question, I think that if the authors didn’t use such powerful imagery it wouldn’t have stuck with the readers the same way this did.