Post #2: Rhetorical Analysis
As I continue to read the book Just Mercy, I also continue to get pulled into the way that Bryan Stevenson writes. During my reading, Stevenson began to mention many other cases that he was looking at and people he was helping while also helping Walter McMillian. He worked tirelessly every day yet still gave it his all to his clients. Stevenson uses these stories of his other clients as part of his rhetoric to draw the reader in and to help them understand the depth of the criminal justice problem.
In the chapters that I read, we learn about two new men: Herbert Richardson and Charlie. Both were being punished for capital murder and were put on death row, which was an excessive punishment for their crimes. We also learn more about the McMillian family and how desperate they are to help Walter. The McMillan family is very large and caring but struggles to bring money in, which is why Stevenson was brought in to work this case. With these new and old stories being told, I was completely drawn into the book and was very intrigued.
Stevenson first uses ethos in his book by mentioning parts in his stories where he expresses the legal issues behind the cases and how some of them were wrongly punished. When Stevenson went to meet with the DA about Walter McMillian’s case, he mentioned many times where things were wrong in the trial. On page 112, Stevenson writes, “‘under the State’s theory, Meyers is an accomplice, and state law requires confirmation of accomplice testimony, which can only come from Hooks. Mr. Houston says Hooks is lying, which makes his testimony a critical issue that should be heard in court.’” When Stevenson writes about this, he shows his knowledge of the law and of the criminal system. He is educated and credible which makes the reader believe and trust him more. You are able to understand what Stevenson is fighting for when he makes these strong statements.
Stevenson also uses logos throughout his book. When explaining his stories, he makes sure to tell the reader the whole story without leaving out little details that could hurt the person he is talking about. He wants his reader to understand the whole story and situation so they are able to think for themselves. When telling the story about Herbert Richardson, a Vietnam war veteran, he writes about every aspect of his life. Herbert had planned to plant a bomb at his girlfriend’s house but it ended up killing a little girl. Herbert “had planned to run to his girlfriend’s aid when the bomb exploded,” (Stevenson 76) but he never got the chance to do so. Also while Stevenson mentioned that placing a bomb anywhere “posed a different kind of threat,” (77) he also mentioned that traumatized from war and “tragically misguided” (77). By mentioning all of this information about Herbert, the reader can logically think what Stevenson was thinking and are able to form their own opinions about the situation. He also draws his own conclusions about the situation which adds to his logic.
On top of both ethos and logos, there are many instances where Stevenson incorporates pathos into his writing. He includes the story of a fourteen-year-old boy, Charlie, who ended up shooting and killing his mother’s abusive boyfriend. After his mother’s boyfriend punched his mother and caused her head to bleed, Stevenson writes, “Charlie tried feverishly to revive her. He started crying, futilely asking his mother what to do” (118). By mentioning how the child was feeling in the situation, it puts the reader in a place where they can picture was is happening and almost put themselves in that situation. The amount of imagery that went into Charlie’s story is what draws on the reader’s emotions. Seeing a child cry and try to help his dying mother is painful to read. The way that Stevenson is able to use aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos in his book makes his writing very strong.
Overall, these three persuasive techniques help Stevenson form a very firm and serious tone throughout the first part of the book. I can only imagine that his tone will remain the same throughout the rest of the book and that we will continue to see aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos. Just Mercy is a very well-written book that keeps the reader hooked with every page.
In the chapters that I read, we learn about two new men: Herbert Richardson and Charlie. Both were being punished for capital murder and were put on death row, which was an excessive punishment for their crimes. We also learn more about the McMillian family and how desperate they are to help Walter. The McMillan family is very large and caring but struggles to bring money in, which is why Stevenson was brought in to work this case. With these new and old stories being told, I was completely drawn into the book and was very intrigued.
Stevenson first uses ethos in his book by mentioning parts in his stories where he expresses the legal issues behind the cases and how some of them were wrongly punished. When Stevenson went to meet with the DA about Walter McMillian’s case, he mentioned many times where things were wrong in the trial. On page 112, Stevenson writes, “‘under the State’s theory, Meyers is an accomplice, and state law requires confirmation of accomplice testimony, which can only come from Hooks. Mr. Houston says Hooks is lying, which makes his testimony a critical issue that should be heard in court.’” When Stevenson writes about this, he shows his knowledge of the law and of the criminal system. He is educated and credible which makes the reader believe and trust him more. You are able to understand what Stevenson is fighting for when he makes these strong statements.
Stevenson also uses logos throughout his book. When explaining his stories, he makes sure to tell the reader the whole story without leaving out little details that could hurt the person he is talking about. He wants his reader to understand the whole story and situation so they are able to think for themselves. When telling the story about Herbert Richardson, a Vietnam war veteran, he writes about every aspect of his life. Herbert had planned to plant a bomb at his girlfriend’s house but it ended up killing a little girl. Herbert “had planned to run to his girlfriend’s aid when the bomb exploded,” (Stevenson 76) but he never got the chance to do so. Also while Stevenson mentioned that placing a bomb anywhere “posed a different kind of threat,” (77) he also mentioned that traumatized from war and “tragically misguided” (77). By mentioning all of this information about Herbert, the reader can logically think what Stevenson was thinking and are able to form their own opinions about the situation. He also draws his own conclusions about the situation which adds to his logic.
On top of both ethos and logos, there are many instances where Stevenson incorporates pathos into his writing. He includes the story of a fourteen-year-old boy, Charlie, who ended up shooting and killing his mother’s abusive boyfriend. After his mother’s boyfriend punched his mother and caused her head to bleed, Stevenson writes, “Charlie tried feverishly to revive her. He started crying, futilely asking his mother what to do” (118). By mentioning how the child was feeling in the situation, it puts the reader in a place where they can picture was is happening and almost put themselves in that situation. The amount of imagery that went into Charlie’s story is what draws on the reader’s emotions. Seeing a child cry and try to help his dying mother is painful to read. The way that Stevenson is able to use aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos in his book makes his writing very strong.
Overall, these three persuasive techniques help Stevenson form a very firm and serious tone throughout the first part of the book. I can only imagine that his tone will remain the same throughout the rest of the book and that we will continue to see aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos. Just Mercy is a very well-written book that keeps the reader hooked with every page.
Works Cited
Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. 2019 ed., New York, Spiegel & Grau, 2019.
I did my first blog post on the rhetorical analysis, and honestly I wish I had waited. When I had done mine, it seemed as though Stevenson was going to write the entire book with as little emotional appeal as possible, but as you pointed out with the Charlie story, he definitely began to but an emotional spin to his story telling. While I had originally made the point that his lack of emotion made the book's impact stronger, I'm starting to see how emotion is actually necessary to show the severity of the situation. I think you did a very good job showing how Stevenson appealed to all the points of the rhetorical triangle.
ReplyDeleteHi Kally!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your second blog post. You brought up so many good ideas and made many good points. I also really enjoyed discussing the book with you in advisory. I think it is really important to have those discussions and I got to hear even more of your thoughts. I like how you chose to analyze a few passages, and point out some of Stevenson's methods of persuasion like ethos, pathos, and logos. The first quote you used I thought reflected ethos very well. You went into detail mentioning parts where Stevenson expresses the legal issues behind the cases and how some of them were wrongly punished. I also thought Charlie's story was a great example of Stevenson using pathos. Charlie's story made me very emotional, I'd have to say. And lastly, I thought the logos example of Herbert's case was very well written. Do you think there was anything else Stevenson could have done to help Herbert or Charlie? Do you still remain curious about Walter's case?
-Cailey :)
Hi Cailey!
DeleteI'm glad you enjoyed the post! To answer your question, I don't think there were too many things that Stevenson could've done to help Herbert or Charlie. He had helped Charlie get out of the adult prison and into a juvenile center, which was very good for Charlie. As for Herbert, I think that they were too far along in his case for Herbert to get much help. Since Stevenson wasn't his first lawyer and all of the information about Herbert wasn't released in court the first time, it would have been very tough for Stevenson to get him off a death row in time. I do think that Stevenson still gave it his best with Herbert's case. Also, I am still very curious about Walter's case. The way that Stevenson intertwines other stories in with Walter's keeps me interested in the book and what's to come.
Good discussion of use of appeals, and why Stevenson includes even the more damning actions that Herbert took. What criticisms of the justice system is Stevenson trying to show with these stories?
ReplyDelete