These essays about disability, written by people who are physically disabled, epitomize the triumph of the writer’s duty: to create a powerful impression of the ever-present hardships, passions, and enduring conflicts of the soul in the present and future; to not write of humanity’s false truths, but to help man endure, prevail, and restore pride in itself. All of these pieces of writing share the same general subject matter, but what connects them even further is an intricate and skilled composition of language. This is evident in their diction and syntax; they articulate particular messages and achieve certain aims in a way much more deep and complex than simply stating it. The authors’ messages are evident in not only the content of their …show more content…
And although they may intersect in some ways, that does not mean they are parallel; they just share some ideas in common. Nancy Mairs is a writer afflicted with multiple sclerosis. In her essay titled Disability, she explores instances of the media’s depiction of disability and argues that the media must treat disability as normal. Comparatively, Harriet McBryde Johnson approaches the subject of her own disability much more lightly, neutral, and analytically. Akin to a scientific lab report, she does not voice a strong opinion, but instead presents facts in a neutral manner without strongly voicing an opinion — even if it is discussing a subject as sensitive as whether she should have been killed at birth. This is a far cry from Mairs’ writing, which not only voices an opinion, but strongly argues for the representation of disabled people in the media. Despite having different approaches to a similar subject, the authors utilize similar literary and rhetorical …show more content…
This targets ethos and pathos; her credibility increases by describing herself as being crippled with multiple sclerosis. Additionally, it makes her audience pity her — and this sets the tone for the rest of her writing. Similarly, Harriet McBryde Johnson’s title (“Should I Have Been Killed at Birth” evokes pathos and ethos in the reader — the concept of being killed at birth or questioning if somebody should be killed at birth is very sensitive, and anybody with any ethics or emotion would probably think NO — nobody should be killed at birth. Using colloquial language, Nancy Mairs recalls a single time when she saw a woman with multiple sclerosis portrayed on a medical drama show: mocking the tv show, she describes their portrayal of this disabled woman as an “illness-of-the-week like the daily special at your local diner”. This use of informal diction and syntax shows that the only instance of a disabled person on television that she has witnessed was solely for entertainment, and did not provide insight on the true nature of the lives of disabled