The works by Ruskin this week were really interesting to me. I first read the lecture about clouds and I was immediately struck by the tone it was written in. I had not realized how personal a lecture could be. Despite having this personal tone, he manages to write a lecture with a more than clear message. I was especially struck by the way he used anecdotal evidence to compound statements made after repeated observations. This balance makes a lecture about clouds an actually fun read. 

The second Ruskin work was the open letter ‘Fors Clavigera.’ This piece had a personal feel as well but was much more intimate than the first. In saying that I mean, the letter felt more like a conversation, rather than a friendly explanation. This conversational feel is brought on by a couple of aspects of the letter. The first thing I noticed was how little Ruskin explains the points he is trying to make or the references that he makes. The reader is expected to know these things as shared knowledge with the author. This is very different from the way he writes the lecture, explaining every little point he brings up and a footnote for each reference made. The second aspect that makes the letter feel more intimate are the frequent tangents he goes on, sometimes only using a seemingly unrelated point to justify a point he is making. These tangents feel like thoughts that may have been had as someone was daydreaming and gazing out a window. This intimate conversational tone allows for more emotional expression and a greater connection with the reader, while sometimes leaving the reader wanting more, which is not always a bad thing.