I was struck by the seeming intimacy present in Ruskin’s open letter, which became more apparent when contrasting it with his lecture. When using the form of the open letter, Ruskin immediately creates a community from his audience and establishes an intimate connection with them by using the address “My Friends,” and through his use of “we.” In the open letter, Ruskin also includes specific calls-to-action by using the second person. An example of this occurs on page 340, when Ruskin says, “I want you therefore, first, to consider how it happens that cursing seems at present the most effectual means for encouraging human work.” I found this method to be more engaging and personal, and I see how it gives the reader a sense of purpose in relation to the social issue at hand (an interesting technique to consider when thinking about the power/limitations of writing to actually engender change). However, I shared in Lucy’s sentiment that these direct calls-to-action sometimes came off as preachy or condescending, especially through Ruskin’s use of language such as “I want you to…”

Echoing the sentiments of Nayun and Lucy, Baldwin’s letter to his nephew was so personal and so deeply attached to his own experiences and those of his loved ones that it was difficult for his argument not to resonate with a reader. In terms of rhetoric, even though Baldwin’s sentiments and message were not things that all readers could relate to, he drew upon language of love, family, and humanity that made his words poignant for a wider audience. For example, he wrote “For here you were, big James, named for me… here you were: to be loved… And now you must survive because we love you, and for the sake of your children and your children’s children” (6-7). Additionally, Baldwin is measured in his language so as not to be accusatory or isolate certain audience members; he remains sensitive to the fact that everyone in his audience would benefit from truly hearing his social critique and could be agents for change. He does this through including lines like “But remember most of mankind is not all of mankind” (5) so as not to be heavy-handed in placing blame, and “Take no one’s word for anything, including mine” (8) so as not to elevate himself above the audience, something I thought was prevalent in Ruskin’s work. 

When addressing educators in “A Talk to Teachers,” I noticed that Baldwin altered his rhetoric by transitioning away from the very emotional language he used to write to his nephew in favor of specific real-life examples and a clear argument and several tangible calls-to-action. He says, “If, for example, one managed to change the curriculum in all the schools so that Negroes learned more about themselves and their real contributions to this culture you would be liberating not only Negroes, you’d be liberating white people who know nothing about their own history” (683). It was clear to me that Baldwin was sensitive to his audience in framing a piece that would appeal to educators. He also defined education and its purpose in a positive light before entering his critique of the system, which I thought was effective and displayed an awareness of his audience.