The following letter was written by the novelist Kurt Vonnegut in response to the news of his book Slaughterhouse-Five being burned by a school administrator named here as Mr. McCarthy. I felt that Vonnegut's thorough approach in his rhetoric was executed perfectly and that the manner in which it was done was inspiring. The reason why it was so inspiring is because he did not attempt to intensely defame the subject outright. Im sure Vonnegut was more than capable and ready to attack Mr. McCarthy with an unending stream of insults. Rather, he focused on the argument, rarely diverging from rational development of his points (remember: he's responding to a very irrational action). The civil manner in which the letter was written should serve as a framework for how all (or most) rhetorical arguments should be constructed. If he didn't choose to write in this fashion, the chance for Mr. McCarthy to change his opinions would have never arisen.
I'm not saying that the letter didn't include any insults. "Ignorant", "fool", and "bad citizen" are insulting enough. I'm saying that Vonnegut seemed to keep his composure in the face of actions that contradicted his very being, which is very admirable and honest to the ideals of rhetoric.
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I am writing to you in your capacity as chairman of the Drake School Board. I am among those American writers whose books have been destroyed in the now famous furnace of your school.
Certain members of your community have suggested that my work is evil. This is extraordinarily insulting to me. The news from Drake indicates to me that books and writers are very unreal to you people. I am writing this letter to let you know how real I am.
I want you to know, too, that my publisher and I have done absolutely nothing to exploit the disgusting news from Drake. We are not clapping each other on the back, crowing about all the books we will sell because of the news. We have declined to go on television, have written no fiery letters to editorial pages, have granted no lengthy interviews. We are angered and sickened and saddened. And no copies of this letter have been sent to anybody else. You now hold the only copy in your hands. It is a strictly private letter from me to the people of Drake, who have done so much to damage my reputation in the eyes of their children and then in the eyes of the world. Do you have the courage and ordinary decency to show this letter to the people, or will it, too, be consigned to the fires of your furnace?
This section allows Vonnegut's ethos to shine as he informs Mr. McCarthy of his refrain from destroying his life in the face of society at large. It reveals his humility and further bolsters the soundness of his argument.
I gather from what I read in the papers and hear on television that you imagine me, and some other writers, too, as being sort of ratlike people who enjoy making money from poisoning the minds of young people. I am in fact a large, strong person, fifty-one years old, who did a lot of farm work as a boy, who is good with tools. I have raised six children, three my own and three adopted. They have all turned out well. Two of them are farmers. I am a combat infantry veteran from World War II, and hold a Purple Heart. I have earned whatever I own by hard work. I have never been arrested or sued for anything. I am so much trusted with young people and by young people that I have served on the faculties of the University of Iowa, Harvard, and the City College of New York. Every year I receive at least a dozen invitations to be commencement speaker at colleges and high schools. My books are probably more widely used in schools than those of any other living American fiction writer.
This section represents another attempt at the building of ethos. Here he establishes his character as one of high merit and success in the eyes of the world.
This paragraph bolsters the logos of his argument by pointing out the irrationality in the actions of McCarthy.
After I have said all this, I am sure you are still ready to respond, in effect, “Yes, yes–but it still remains our right and our responsibility to decide what books our children are going to be made to read in our community.” This is surely so. But it is also true that if you exercise that right and fulfill that responsibility in an ignorant, harsh, un-American manner, then people are entitled to call you bad citizens and fools. Even your own children are entitled to call you that.
This paragraph calls into question the character of McCarthy as Vonnegut directly questions the morality of his administrative behavior.
I read in the newspaper that your community is mystified by the outcry from all over the country about what you have done. Well, you have discovered that Drake is a part of American civilization, and your fellow Americans can’t stand it that you have behaved in such an uncivilized way. Perhaps you will learn from this that books are sacred to free men for very good reasons, and that wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them. If you are an American, you must allow all ideas to circulate freely in your community, not merely your own.
This paragraph is an appeal to pathos because Vonnegut calls into question McCarthy's existence as an American which would most likely serve to elicit a strong emotional response in the subject.
If you and your board are now determined to show that you in fact have wisdom and maturity when you exercise your powers over the eduction of your young, then you should acknowledge that it was a rotten lesson you taught young people in a free society when you denounced and then burned books–books you hadn’t even read. You should also resolve to expose your children to all sorts of opinions and information, in order that they will be better equipped to make decisions and to survive.
Again: you have insulted me, and I am a good citizen, and I am very real.
Kurt Vonnegut
Connor, this letter was so interesting! I wasn't familiar with this book-burning controversy before, so thanks for the history lesson :) I agree that Vonnegut did an excellent job in this letter of establishing his credibility as a citizen and a father. He managed to make himself seem less threatening (as I imagine he was seen) by pointing out the many ways in which he functioned normally and helpfully in the world. As he said, writers aren't ratlike, poisonous people. They're real and they deserve respect. If that dignity is withheld, they--and other, conscientious people--will take offense. Vonnegut did an excellent job bolstering his argument by referencing the many others who were outraged by the Drake burnings. He appealed to common civic decency, and I think that pathos made his argument both passionate and reasonable.
ReplyDelete