In reading Ruskin’s lecture, I noticed that he largely utilizes time-stamped observations of storm clouds (5-6), historical references to prophecy (8), and facts about scientific research methods, such as the use of an anemometer and sun-measurements (7-8), to back his claims and form a cohesive argument. Although, as voiced by several other classmates, I found myself rather bored by his droning on of such topics by the end of the piece, I felt fulfilled by the conclusion in that I had grasped a full understanding of his argument. On the other hand, his letter felt more so like a bit of a larger conversation rather than a wholly outlined argument with directly presented ultimate demands/plans of action. I found his tone to be more conversational rather than academic in his letter through instances such as the one Allison noted “That last sentence is wonderfully awkward English, not to say ungrammatical; but I must write such English as may come today” (323), alongside his admittance to not knowing the scientific background behind some of what he discussed, such as the reason “why large mountains should break into large pebbles” (325). In both quotes, it is clear that he is writing more so in a stream of consciousness rather than from an outlined argument with prior outside research conducted to further support his points, as he did in the lecture. Further, I found his assertion on page 323 that he will not explain what needs to be done nor does he require his audience to act on his words yet given that he does not believe them to understand his principles at the present time. This quotation and his scattered open-ended questions throughout the letter demonstrate to me that discussing social change can be especially impactful when presented in a conversational format that takes into consideration the importance of one’s audience expressing their understanding before moving forward with plan-making and being able to potentially respond to the presented questions before they are answered by their presenter. I also found Ruskin’s reference to daily occurrences and interruptions in his letter writing such as the frequent, distracting whistling of the train to further his argument in providing context as to how the issue of industrialization deeply impacts everyday life, even as he writes.

In Baldwin’s letter, he draws on shared ancestry and personal affection to emphasize the importance of his argument to his nephew while in his lecture he emphasizes the values in education that are important to his audience to do so. Interestingly, I noticed how he differently expressed the same sentiment in his two pieces in a way which I believe outlines how he thinks his two different audiences can best “know whence you came,” which he deems important given “if you know whence you came, there is really no limit to where you can go” (8). In the letter, he says that his “countrymen” will say that he “exaggerates” (8) the instances of oppression he is identifying and that his nephew must trust his personal experience and not such words of others to understand his position in this framework. On the other hand, in the lecture he states “if you think I am exaggerating, examine the myths which proliferate in this country about Negroes” (679), which calls on educators to learn about the experiences of others and is presented in a much less ridiculing tone and without the immediate assumption of neglect so that it will be more readily received by his audience of educators.