Thus far, we have been taking a rhetorical approach to the analysis of nonfiction but not of fiction or poetry—what we’ll call imaginative literature. Works of imaginative literature often have a rhetorical purpose, even if it’s not immediately obvious. The most direct use of rhetoric in imaginative literature is through a speech by a character or a persuasive bit of dialogue between characters. Think, for instance, of the famous speeches in Shakespeare’s plays or Atticus Finch’s closing argument in To Kill a Mockingbird. These examples of literary rhetoric usually have two speakers—the author and the character giving the speech. It’s important to keep in mind the concept of persona and remember that these two speakers are not necessarily the same and might not have the same purpose. Let’s look at an example of this sort of literary rhetoric.
The following speech is from Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels (1974), a Pulitzer Prize–winning historical novel about the Civil War. The passage below presents Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain addressing a group of 120 deserters captured by the Union army. Colonel Chamberlain has to decide what to do with them as his regiment marches to battle at Gettysburg. The episode is fiction but based on actual events. Combining research and imagination, Shaara has created what he thinks Chamberlain might have said.
from The Killer Angels
Michael Shaara
They were silent, watching him. Chamberlain began to relax. He had made many speeches and he had a gift for it. He did not know what it was, but when he spoke most men stopped to listen. Fanny said it was something in his voice. He hoped it was there now.
“I’ve been ordered to take you men with me. I’ve been told that if you don’t come I can shoot you. Well, you know I won’t do that. Not Maine men. I won’t shoot any man who doesn’t want this fight. Maybe someone else will, but I won’t. So that’s that.”
He paused again. There was nothing on their faces to lead him.
“Here’s the situation. I’ve been ordered to take you along, and that’s what I’m going to do. Under guard if necessary. But you can have your rifles if you want them. The whole Reb army is up the road a ways waiting for us and this is no time for an argument like this. I tell you this: we sure can use you. We’re down below half strength and we need you, no doubt of that. But whether you fight or not is up to you. Whether you come along, well, you’re coming.”
5
Tom had come up with Chamberlain’s horse. Over the heads of the prisoners Chamberlain could see the Regiment falling into line out in the flaming road. He took a deep breath.
“Well, I don’t want to preach to you. You know who we are and what we’re doing here. But if you’re going to fight alongside us there’s a few things I want you to know.”
He bowed his head, not looking at eyes. He folded his hands together.
“This Regiment was formed last fall, back in Maine. There were a thousand of us then. There’s not three hundred of us now.” He glanced up briefly. “But what is left is choice.”
He was embarrassed. He spoke very slowly, staring at the ground.
10
“Some of us volunteered to fight for Union. Some came in mainly because we were bored at home and this looked like it might be fun. Some came because we were ashamed not to. Many of us came…because it was the right thing to do. All of us have seen men die. Most of us never saw a black man back home. We think on that, too. But freedom…is not just a word.”
He looked up in to the sky, over silent faces.
“This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you’ll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we’re here for something new. I don’t…this hasn’t happened much in the history of the world. We’re an army going out to set other men free.”
He bent down, scratched the black dirt into his fingers. He was beginning to warm to it; the words were beginning to flow. No one in front of him was moving. He said, “This is free ground. All the way from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by what your father was. Here you can be something. Here’s a place to build a home. It isn’t the land—there’s always more land. It’s the idea that we all have value, you and me, we’re worth something more than the dirt. I never saw dirt I’d die for, but I’m not asking you to come join us and fight for dirt. What we’re all fighting for, in the end, is each other.”
(1974)
Let’s apply SOAPS to this episode, bearing in mind the difference between character and author as we do so.
| COLONEL CHAMBERLAIN | MICHAEL SHAARA | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | the purpose for fighting, the reason for the war | leadership and heroism, as demonstrated by Colonel Chamberlain |
| Occasion | the capture of Union deserters and the dilemma of what to do with them as the rest of the regiment marches into battle | the author’s characterization of Colonel Chamberlain within the context of the story he is writing |
| Audience | the group of deserters | the readers, particularly those with an interest in history, especially of the Civil War |
| Purpose | to argue his case against desertion, to motivate the soldiers to continue fighting, and to convince them of the nobility of their duty | to entertain and to inform; to bring to life a heroic figure in a dramatic setting; to inspire |
| Speaker | Colonel Chamberlain, the character, is an authoritative and compassionate leader, a gifted rhetorician, and a man of high ideals and purpose. | Michael Shaara is an expert on the history of the period and a skilled writer who esteems heroism and duty. |
Now let’s analyze Colonel Chamberlain’s speech. We hear his smooth and relaxed tone as he tells the men what he has been “ordered” to do. Right away, he establishes his ethos; he is a colonel, a leader to be obeyed, but he is at the same time a man to be trusted—trusted not to shoot the men. It is not long before he appeals to pathos. “I tell you this: we sure can use you,” he says (par. 4). His language is colloquial as he asks them to serve and persuades them to sacrifice for a noble cause. He reviews the common reasons that men fight: to escape boredom or shame; to gain property or “loot.” But then he says, “This is a different kind of army…. We’re an army going out to set other men free” (par. 12). In what is at once a highly impassioned but low-key speech, Chamberlain appeals to the common values of freedom, democracy, allegiance, and community. The rhetorical purpose of the character of Colonel Chamberlain is to convince the deserters to join him in battle; Michael Shaara’s—the author’s—rhetorical purpose is to create a heroic character to exemplify the virtues he esteems.
Following the speech in the story, Shaara writes, “After a moment, Tom [Chamberlain’s younger brother] came riding up. His face was delighted. Chamberlain said, ‘How many are going to join us?’ Tom grinned hugely. “‘Would you believe it? All but six.’” Clearly, Colonel Chamberlain’s rhetorical strategies were successful. And so were Shaara’s, as he created a scene to show not only what heroism is but also what it can do.
Not all imaginative literature is so straightforwardly rhetorical. Sometimes its rhetorical purpose must be inferred by a close, careful reading of the text. Let’s look at “When I heard the learn’d astronomer,” a nineteenth-century poem by Walt Whitman.
When I heard the learn’d astronomer
Walt Whitman
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
5
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
(1865)
This brief poem seems simple enough. But who is the speaker? Is it Whitman? That’s hard to say. Written in the first person, the poem’s single periodic sentence presents the thoughts of a person who attends a lecture, becomes bored, and goes outside to soak in the majesty of nature. What is the rhetorical purpose of this poem? Whitman, or his speaker, is creating a contrast between the scientific study and the mystical experience of nature in order to argue that such a systematic and mathematical approach robs nature of its beauty and wonder. The means of creating that argument are poetic: the speaker characterizes the lecture room with the geometry of “proofs,” “figures,” “columns,” and “charts and diagrams” where the “astronomer” lectures about celestial science; “tired and sick,” the speaker walks outside to experience the “mystical moist night-air.” The din of the lecture hall (the astronomer’s words and the “applause”) contrasts with the “perfect silence” of the night sky. It is clear which the poet prefers, and this poem is Whitman’s attempt not only to express his view, but also to convince us to share it.