Francis Gage, a white American feminist and abolitionist, recalled Truth's famous "Ain't I A Woman" speech in an account years after the convention. Gage immediately establishes Truth's physical presence as a powerful rhetorical tool itself as he describes her "a tall, gaunt black woman in a gray dress and white turban, surmounted with an uncouth sun-bonnet, march deliberately into the church, walk with the air of a queen up the aisle, and take her seat upon the pulpit steps" (Gage par. 2). This striking visual is the foundation of Truth's powerful appeal to ethos, as Truth walked into the convention with authority, dignity, and confidence. Gage notes that the audacity of Truth in presenting herself as a welcomed guest allowed her to embody the emotion of admiration, which was a dynamic and effective use of pathos because it allowed her to align with the affinities of her audience, setting a respectful stage for her upcoming address.
Gage also wrote, "I have never in my life seen anything like the magical influence of that subdued the mobbish spirit of the day, and turned sneers and jeers of an excited crowd into notes of respect and admiration" (Gage par.10) This powerful reflection by Gage demonstrates the immediate success of Truth's rhetorical strategy, which incorporated pathos to transform the audience's emotional state. Truth's ability to calm an audience not made up of her peers and who were creating a somewhat hostile atmosphere, demonstrates her skilled rhetorical approach. This earned respect is crucial, as it begins to strengthen her credibility (ethos). Next, the emotional connotations (pathos) of Truth's speech will be explored through the lens of Truth's passionate prose, earning her increased esteem from those in attendance.
Sojourner Truth proclaims in her speech, “Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman?” (Sojourner Truth: Ain’t I A Woman par. 4). With this expression Truth is referencing slave conditions and denotes her hard work as defying the rigor expectations of a man and redefining a woman’s capabilities. Also, historians have confirmed Sojourner Truth’s physical gestures during her speech, “and she bared her right arm to the shoulder, showing her tremendous muscular power,”. This was also an intentional strategy to provoke a reaction from her audience. In the following sentence, Truth reemphasizes her credibility as a hardworking woman when she says, “I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman?” (Sojourner Truth: Ain’t I A Woman par. 4). The repetition utilized by Truth speaks to her intention to make the focus of her speech about human rights, in this case, women. Additionally, Truth demonstrated pathos in the form of emotional personal anecdotes by purposefully kindling feelings of pain and hunger caused by slavery to project shame onto her audience and garner sympathy. By sharing her own experiences of hard work and adversity, Truth strengthens her own credibility (ethos) and her purpose to advocate for rights by changing perspectives on a woman’s abilities.
Truth concludes her argument with a striking appeal to religious imagery and a definitive challenge to her audience's ethics. The near end of her speech declares, “If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!” (Sojourner Truth: Ain’t I A Woman par. 8). This statement uses the vivid, metaphorical imagery of turning the world upside down to represent Eve’s powerful, destructive, influence, providing the audience with a tangible picture of female capability. By contrasting Eve's effort with the potential collective power of "these women together," Truth reinforces the ethos of the women's movement, compelling her audience to action. This final argument is a strategic call to action for human rights, suggesting that if women are granted the rights they deserve, they can exert a positive, corrective force on society.
Truth next introduces a deeply emotional appeal to pathos by referencing her devastating experience with slavery and motherhood. She states, “I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?” (Sojourner Truth: Ain’t I A Woman par. 4). The exemplifying of slavery in this way was a strategic appeal to pathos intended to evoke sympathy from her audience, particularly resonating with the sentiments surrounding motherhood shared by the white women in attendance. By mentioning Jesus, Truth strategically transitions into her next persuasive strategy: an appeal to religious ethos to strengthen her arguments for women’s rights.
As the speech venue was inside a Church, the Old Stone Church, implying the audience likely favored Christianity, Truth boldly asserts, “he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him” (Sojourner Truth: Ain’t I A Woman par. 6). This powerful section references Mary, the woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ as understood by Christian theology, and Truth uses this shared religious knowledge to highlight the inherent value of a woman. Through this powerful and strategic appeal to religious ethos, Truth successfully persuaded her listeners in favor of women’s rights and suffrage, which implicitly included black women's rights and, consequently, support for the abolition of slavery.
Sojourner Truth’s address stands as a powerful testament to the effective use of rhetoric in the fight for human rights for all. Truth deliberately employed a combination of rhetorical strategies and devices to directly engage her skeptical audience and mobilize them toward her call-to-action. As established throughout this analysis, ethos served as the driver of her persuasion. Truth began her speech by building her credibility from her unique, powerful biography as a formerly enslaved Black woman and mother. She used anecdotes about her strength and resilience (a rhetorical device) to contrast the dominant, limited view of white female fragility at the time, thereby expanding the definition of "womanhood." This appeal to her personal character and undeniable work ethic directly challenged the prevailing gender and racial hierarchies and she demanded her right to speak and be acknowledged as equal in the eyes of the law. Truth skillfully deployed pathos to transform her audience's sympathy into emotional resonance.
These personal stories, amplified by potent imagery, functioned as a deliberate strategy to generate empathy and respect for her experiences, making her arguments for universal rights visceral and undeniable. Her powerful appeals to religion also enhanced this pathos, clarifying that Christian doctrine inherently values all human beings, regardless of race or gender, and thus encourages the rights and freedom of every person. By strategically weaving together the persuasive strategies of ethos and pathos, supported by devices like imagery and anecdotes, Sojourner Truth achieved her goal: to engage her audience and deliver a profound call-to-action for the recognition of human rights for all. Her masterful and multi-layered approach to rhetoric ensures that the "Ain’t I a Woman?" speech remains a historically relevant and inspiring blueprint for modern political activists.
My revision process for this rhetorical analysis focused on increasing precision, cohesion, and alignment with the revised thesis: "Truth uses rhetorical devices like imagery and strategies like appeals to ethos and pathos to engage her audience and call-to-action, human rights for all." I specifically revised the introduction, the conclusion, and several body paragraph references. The most significant change was the revision of the thesis itself and the subsequent restructure of the conclusion. I shifted the central focus away from a primary analysis of religion and toward the synergy between the two main rhetorical strategies (ethos and pathos) and the specific rhetorical devices (imagery and anecdotes). For instance, I eliminated the vague concluding paragraph that ranked religion as the "most convincing" strategy. The new conclusion now explicitly frames the religious appeals and vivid imagery (like the Eve anecdote) as devices that successfully enhanced pathos or reinforced ethos, rather than treating religion as a separate structural point. This change was crucial because my body paragraphs primarily analyzed ethos and pathos, making the original conclusion structurally inconsistent. I also consistently replaced general language like "women’s rights and support abolitionist efforts" with the more encompassing and thesis-driven term, "human rights for all." This ensures every analytical component directly supports the main claim. These revisions significantly improved the flow of the essay by making the language of the conclusion to directly mirror the language of the thesis. By defining the strategies, devices, and the explicit call-to-action, the essay now delivers a more powerful, focused, and cohesive analysis. This demonstrated a deeper thought process when considering my chosen framework of the rhetorical analysis, proving the central claim with clarity.
David Means is widely praised as a master of short stories known for his vivid prose and unique narrative structures, often featuring both violence and passion. In the short story “It Counts As Seeing,” by David Means, readers observe an old blind man fall down a set of stairs from multiple subjective points of view before revealing the objective point of view from the old blind man himself. Means’ skillful use of manipulating point-of-view, using grim characterizations, employs unreliable narrators to contribute to the intense and enthralling qualities of the story. Ultimately, Means argues that by exposing the deep discrepancy between subjective perspective and objective truth, it forces the reader to confront the idea that physical sight is inherently untrustworthy, positioning internal experience and formal manipulation as the ways to consider reality.
The inner thoughts of the first character are revealed immediately, establishing a foundational example of the story’s central conflict: the imperfection of subjective, sighted perspective. The narrator states, “I went right up to him and took his elbow, not even asking him if I should because he was heading hellfire for the first step, not seeing – because how could he?” (Means p. 16). This initial subjective point of view instantly characterizes the blind man through the narrator's ableist assumptions: he is a problematic figure who must be helped because he is "not seeing." When the blind man rejects the intervention—"Back off, he says, and I let go, and then he tumbles all the way down to the bottom of the stairs, doing this cartwheel motion, head over heels"(means p 16). The sighted narrator implicitly casts himself as a self-justifying hero and the blind man as a stubborn victim whose rejection of aid caused his fall. This sequence instantly establishes the unreliability of physical sight, as the narrator sees only what he expects: a helpless man needing aid, completely missing the man’s competence and agency. The grim characterization and immediate leap to judgment exemplify the story’s core argument: physical observation is not a pathway to truth but a filter for preexisting bias.
Means masterfully uses a succession of subjective viewpoints and unreliable narrators not to solve the mystery of the fall, but to demonstrate how easily “truth” can be distorted by the simple act of subjective perception. This technique sustains the tension and mystery that Alec Niedenthal, a published writer, describes as Mean's "machinery of detail and soulfulness of tone" (par. 2). The narrative pivots to a second observer, preoccupied at the bank, whose concern for the blind man is an internal, sighted projection. This character barely registers the scene until he approaches the steps and sees a "pool of dark blood," at which point a new, even more unreliable, subjective element is introduced: a young female accuser who interjects, “That asshole shoved the blind man down the stairs” (Means p. 16). This unverified accusation leads to the immediate, unwarranted arrest of an innocent observer. As one article defines, an unreliable narrator “lacks credibility or distorts the truth... (and) challenges the reader’s interpretation of the narrative” (Feccomandi par. 8). The young woman's definitive blame, based solely on a biased moment of "seeing," triggers an unjust consequence. By presenting multiple, inconsistent, and grim scenarios, Means forces the reader to confront the ethical hazard of presuming to know. This formal manipulation—the cycling through flawed perspectives is the only true guide to the story’s thematic reality.
Ironically, the objective point-of-view from the old blind man himself is the shortest segment, yet it carries the most analytic weight. The answers to previous questions prompted by the text are partially answered in a tone that is quite mundane, "After making a deposit of birth fees for my boatyard, I'm going as usual out the bank to the steps, feeling the nub of my cane hitting the first void... not thinking, of course, because all this touch-and-feeling stuff- second nature to me-translating the taps, vibrations up the cane to my hand and in turn into my brain, where the sensation is translated to the dimensions of space." The objective clarity of this internal experience exposes the failure of physical sight emphasized in the thesis. It becomes clear that the old blind man knew exactly what he was doing when approaching the stairs, despite the ablest sentiment detailed by previous subjective perspectives. It would not be an overstatement to assert that the mystery and moodiness in the story are triggered by the unreliable subjective limited points of view, which highlight the inherent untrustworthiness of physical sight. Each subjective point of view left the reader feeling uneasy about who to blame for the blind man's fall and whose storyline to believe. Should the blind man have accepted help? Should the man who grabbed the blind man's elbow have helped a different way? Did the young lady witness something not seen to the reader—maybe he was pushed? In the end, no plausibility was found despite the motivation to find logic.
The core conflict in the story is driven by the motif of sight versus internal knowledge. The entire drama hinges on the failure of the sighted observers to process what they see without imposing their messy, emotional, and assumptive interpretations. This contrasts sharply with the blind man’s reality: a world of practiced, logical movement where the stairs are familiar. When he falls, whether due to external interference or accident, the sighted witnesses immediately attach a grim narrative of blame and incompetence to the event, overlooking his competence. The title itself, “It Counts As Seeing,” is Means's powerful statement about the superiority of knowledge gained through non-visual, internal experience over mere observation. For Means, true "seeing" requires understanding, context, and empathy, none of which the subjective, sighted narrators possess.
The message of the short story has profound real-world implications, particularly when examining how subjective viewpoints fail to align with objective truth, mirroring the documented fallibility of human perception. For example, the legal and psychological fields have extensively documented that eyewitness accounts, while powerful, are fundamentally unreliable due to memory distortions and biases. Research indicates that factors like stress and the passage of time cause memory to be a “decision-making process... affected by the totality of a person's abilities, background, attitudes, and motives,” rather than an accurate recording device [Khan, par. 12]. Means’s narrative perfectly dramatizes this phenomenon: the female accuser's immediate, definitive blame "That asshole shoved..."is not objective truth but a biased "memory template" By denying the reader a clear, linear account of the fall and instead providing multiple flawed perspectives, Means ultimately achieves a powerful literary feat: he makes the reader experience the anxiety of not knowing and the ethical hazard of presuming to know. A review by the Daily Telegraph states, “The short story is his natural medium; in his hands, it seems as elemental a form as the landscape from which he patiently carves it...He take you places you don’t want to visit, but makes you understand why you have to go there” (Daily Telegraph pp.70). This review can be interpreted as an observation of the way Means intentionally creates purpose within his stories using vivid descriptions and, crucially, by forcing the audience to grapple with uncomfortable truths about their judgmental gaze.
In “It Counts As Seeing,” David Means uses the tragic accident of a fall down the stairs to construct a profound critique of subjective reality. The intense mood, the mystery, and the underlying tension are all direct results of his technical mastery of formal manipulation. By cycling through grim characterizations and unreliable narrators who possess physical sight, Means demonstrates that this ability is often the most significant impediment to true knowledge. The entire drama hinges on the failure of the sighted observers to process what they see without attaching their own flawed, judgmental narratives of blame and incompetence. Only through the brief, factual perspective of the blind man, does the reader gain any objective clarity. The title itself, “It Counts As Seeing,” is Means’ final, powerful statement: true “seeing” requires understanding, context, and empathy—an internal knowledge that overrides mere observation. The story’s ultimate purpose is achieved through its form, forcing readers to confront the idea that physical sight is inherently untrustworthy, positioning the structure and manipulation of the narrative as the only reliable path to reality.
The revisions made to the Literary Analysis Essay focused primarily on refining the thesis and tightening the connection between literary devices and the story's central argument. Specifically, I revised the original thesis (Page 1) to be more forceful and concise in the revised version (Page 1). The original suggested Means "challenges the reader's trust in physical sight as a reliable source of truth", while the revision states Means "forces the reader to confront the idea that physical sight is inherently untrustworthy, positioning internal experience and formal manipulation as the ways to consider reality". This change was made to more clearly state Means' argument rather than just the effect on the reader, thus strengthening the analytical foundation of the essay. I also made several strategic changes in language and structure throughout the body paragraphs to improve flow. For example, I revised sentences in the first body paragraph to directly link the grim characterization and the narrator's ableist assumptions, making the argument more explicit than in the original. I also specifically inserted the phrase "This formal manipulation" (Page 2) to explicitly name the author’s technique, cycling through flawed perspectives, as the primary guide to the story's theme. These revisions significantly improved the essay by making the causal link between Means' technical mastery (unreliable narrators, shifting point-of-view) and the essay’s ultimate claim (the failure of physical sight) more direct and persuasive. By focusing on stronger verbs and clearer thematic connections, I moved the essay from merely describing literary techniques to actively analyzing their purpose.