Authors Purpose:
David McCullough wrote “1776” in an effort to educate the readers about both the good and the bad of the American Revolution. McCullough wants to dispel the romanticized aspects of the American Revolution and allow the true, deeper meaning of the Revolution to be presented in a non-biased light. A perfect example of this is McCullough’s description of the American army: “It was an army of men accustomed to hard work, hard work being the common lot. They were familiar with adversity and making do in a harsh climate… To be sure, an appreciable number had no trade. They were drifters, tavern lowlife, some, the dregs of society.” This is a perfect example of how McCullough describes both the good and the bad, making sure that the pretenses of a “perfect” revolution are dispelled. The terror and horror that the revolution brought cannot be overlooked, and McCullough doesn’t. Because the dark details are exposed, the reality of the revolution sinks in, further decreasing the romanticized stories of the revolution. McCullough gives a first person example of a lieutenants terror that is a shocking reminder of the brutality of war: “I saw a lieutenant who…ran around among the men of his company, sniveling and blubbering, praying each on if he had aught against him, or if he had injured anyone, that they would forgive him, declaring at the same time that he, from his heart, forgave them if they had offended him.” The American Revolution wasn’t a pretty, perfect fight for freedom. Rather, as McCullough shows through his startling account, it was a brutal war of attrition, one in which neither side had a true moral justification to fight the other.
Pathos:
American’s naturally identify and are drawn towards the revolution because they are raised with American values and with the idea that it was a fight for the good of America. This means that the revolution naturally resonates emotionally with American Citizens and is one of the reasons that this book so deeply affects the reader. McCullough uses pathos as a mean to connect the reader into the story, to make the reader form an attachment with the people and the history involved in the American Revolution. One example of this is Nathanael Greene. McCullough describes him as: “…a burly figure, about five feet ten inches tall, with the arms and shoulders of a foundryman, and handsome, though an inoculation for smallpox had left a cloudy spot in his right eye. A broad forehead and a full, decided mouth were considered his best features.” McCullough also describes that he had an avid interest in educating himself. McCullough even quotes Nathanael: “I lament the want of a liberal education. I feel the mist of ignorance to surround me” and describes him as a “cheerful, vigorous, thoughtful” young man. Examples like these are perfect to show how McCullough connects the reader to the lives of those who participated in the revolution. The reader becomes emotionally connected to these people because despite the difference in time and sometimes location, the underlying reasons behind what motivated these people and what they strived for isn’t that different than what people today strive for as well. That truly connects the reader to the people of that age and time.
American’s naturally identify and are drawn towards the revolution because they are raised with American values and with the idea that it was a fight for the good of America. This means that the revolution naturally resonates emotionally with American Citizens and is one of the reasons that this book so deeply affects the reader. McCullough uses pathos as a mean to connect the reader into the story, to make the reader form an attachment with the people and the history involved in the American Revolution. One example of this is Nathanael Greene. McCullough describes him as: “…a burly figure, about five feet ten inches tall, with the arms and shoulders of a foundryman, and handsome, though an inoculation for smallpox had left a cloudy spot in his right eye. A broad forehead and a full, decided mouth were considered his best features.” McCullough also describes that he had an avid interest in educating himself. McCullough even quotes Nathanael: “I lament the want of a liberal education. I feel the mist of ignorance to surround me” and describes him as a “cheerful, vigorous, thoughtful” young man. Examples like these are perfect to show how McCullough connects the reader to the lives of those who participated in the revolution. The reader becomes emotionally connected to these people because despite the difference in time and sometimes location, the underlying reasons behind what motivated these people and what they strived for isn’t that different than what people today strive for as well. That truly connects the reader to the people of that age and time.
Logos:
McCullough writes more of a historical narrative rather than a dry, completely informative book designed to cram information into the readers head. With that being said, there are some definite statistics that are used. McCullough often provides logos in the form of quotes, and example of this is Washington: “We have not at this time 100 guns in the stores of all that have been taken in the prize ship.” McCullough also goes on to state that: “On paper his army numbered between 8,000 and 10,000. In reality only half that number were fit for duty.” As you can see, because of the subject matter of this book, McCullough often uses logos for sparingly and mainly for casualty numbers or the statistics involving the war effort. Another excellent example is when McCullough goes over Henry Knox’s weapons: “The Guns Know had come for were mostly French---mortars, 12-and 18-pound cannon, and on giant brass 24-pounder. Not all were in usable condition. After looking them over, Knox selected 58 mortars and cannon. Three of the mortars weighed a ton each and the 24-pounder cannon, more than 5,000 pounds. The whole lot was believed to weigh not less than 120,000 pounds.” This is another example of how McCullough uses logos through his story telling. This allows him to weave these facts and numbers into his story seamlessly and smoothly to give the reader a sense of scale and magnitude that words sometimes can’t. One last example of logos is when McCullough states the numbers involved in the Battery to King’s Bridge. McCullough states: “It was thought that the American army, spread now from the Battery to King’s Bridge, numbered 20,000, but with men deserting in droves, it was difficult to tell.” This last example is just one more reference to how McCullough uses facts and stories effortlessly in order to emerge the reader in the true facts and reality of the American Revolution.
McCullough writes more of a historical narrative rather than a dry, completely informative book designed to cram information into the readers head. With that being said, there are some definite statistics that are used. McCullough often provides logos in the form of quotes, and example of this is Washington: “We have not at this time 100 guns in the stores of all that have been taken in the prize ship.” McCullough also goes on to state that: “On paper his army numbered between 8,000 and 10,000. In reality only half that number were fit for duty.” As you can see, because of the subject matter of this book, McCullough often uses logos for sparingly and mainly for casualty numbers or the statistics involving the war effort. Another excellent example is when McCullough goes over Henry Knox’s weapons: “The Guns Know had come for were mostly French---mortars, 12-and 18-pound cannon, and on giant brass 24-pounder. Not all were in usable condition. After looking them over, Knox selected 58 mortars and cannon. Three of the mortars weighed a ton each and the 24-pounder cannon, more than 5,000 pounds. The whole lot was believed to weigh not less than 120,000 pounds.” This is another example of how McCullough uses logos through his story telling. This allows him to weave these facts and numbers into his story seamlessly and smoothly to give the reader a sense of scale and magnitude that words sometimes can’t. One last example of logos is when McCullough states the numbers involved in the Battery to King’s Bridge. McCullough states: “It was thought that the American army, spread now from the Battery to King’s Bridge, numbered 20,000, but with men deserting in droves, it was difficult to tell.” This last example is just one more reference to how McCullough uses facts and stories effortlessly in order to emerge the reader in the true facts and reality of the American Revolution.
Ethos:
David McCullough is a qualified writer and a rather distinguished one, having won the Pulitzer Prize twice, and also having won twice the National Book Award, and was awarded the National Book Foundation Distinguished Contribution to American Letters and the National Humanities Medal. His credibility is sound. Besides just being a talented and award winning writer, he also is an amazing researcher and historian. Besides having written many other books such as “The Great Bridge” or “The Johnstown Flood” or “John Adams”. He researches extensively in both American and British archives in order to find the information necessary to be able to write this book. This qualifies him as a credible source because it shows that he has a background of award winning books and has been a writer that has achieved professional recognition from many different sources. Next, he is credible because he clearly states he has done research on the topic from both the American and British archives which each contain many different sources, and shows that he has a diverse and encompassing collection of information from credibly sources.
David McCullough is a qualified writer and a rather distinguished one, having won the Pulitzer Prize twice, and also having won twice the National Book Award, and was awarded the National Book Foundation Distinguished Contribution to American Letters and the National Humanities Medal. His credibility is sound. Besides just being a talented and award winning writer, he also is an amazing researcher and historian. Besides having written many other books such as “The Great Bridge” or “The Johnstown Flood” or “John Adams”. He researches extensively in both American and British archives in order to find the information necessary to be able to write this book. This qualifies him as a credible source because it shows that he has a background of award winning books and has been a writer that has achieved professional recognition from many different sources. Next, he is credible because he clearly states he has done research on the topic from both the American and British archives which each contain many different sources, and shows that he has a diverse and encompassing collection of information from credibly sources.
Critics:
David Greenberg, Author of “Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image” states: “Our exasperation will stem partly, to be sure, from envy of McCullough's undeniable gift for storytelling and of his smashing popularity. But my academic colleagues will (or should) raise legitimate objections to the approach of a book like this—the surfeit of scene-setting and personality, the meager analysis and argument, the lack of a compelling rationale for writing about a topic already amply covered. McCullough's fans won't care. They typically have little use for what they regard—not always wrongly—as the narrowly focused, politically correct, jargon-clotted academic monographs that dwell on arcane issues instead of big, meaty topics like politics, diplomacy, and war.” Now this is an interesting critic, because it contrasts directly with what McCullough wanted to do. Greenberg states the McCullough is more interested in storytelling than telling the actual facts, which directly contradicts what McCullough’s apparent purpose is in writing this book. Now, Greenberg does say that McCullough is an excellent writer and that in part is why there is so much jealousy about this book, but he goes on to state that he doubts the validity of the facts and that he suspects that important aspects were glossed over. Another review by Harris Andrews, states: “As enjoyable as the book is, 1776 recounts an oft-told tale, one that has attracted the attention of many historians over the years. While McCullough ably pulls together masses of information, 1776 does not offer much that is new, nor does it offer fresh insights into the lives and character of the primary actors.” What Harris states that differs so much from McCullough, is that Harris doesn’t believe that anything new was brought up, that all of this information and the way it’s portrayed isn’t new or any more insightful.
David Greenberg, Author of “Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image” states: “Our exasperation will stem partly, to be sure, from envy of McCullough's undeniable gift for storytelling and of his smashing popularity. But my academic colleagues will (or should) raise legitimate objections to the approach of a book like this—the surfeit of scene-setting and personality, the meager analysis and argument, the lack of a compelling rationale for writing about a topic already amply covered. McCullough's fans won't care. They typically have little use for what they regard—not always wrongly—as the narrowly focused, politically correct, jargon-clotted academic monographs that dwell on arcane issues instead of big, meaty topics like politics, diplomacy, and war.” Now this is an interesting critic, because it contrasts directly with what McCullough wanted to do. Greenberg states the McCullough is more interested in storytelling than telling the actual facts, which directly contradicts what McCullough’s apparent purpose is in writing this book. Now, Greenberg does say that McCullough is an excellent writer and that in part is why there is so much jealousy about this book, but he goes on to state that he doubts the validity of the facts and that he suspects that important aspects were glossed over. Another review by Harris Andrews, states: “As enjoyable as the book is, 1776 recounts an oft-told tale, one that has attracted the attention of many historians over the years. While McCullough ably pulls together masses of information, 1776 does not offer much that is new, nor does it offer fresh insights into the lives and character of the primary actors.” What Harris states that differs so much from McCullough, is that Harris doesn’t believe that anything new was brought up, that all of this information and the way it’s portrayed isn’t new or any more insightful.
MLA Citation:
Greenberg, David. N.p.. Web. 16 Sep 2013. <http://hnn.us/article/12073>.
Andrews, Harris. "1776 (Book Review)." Historynet.com. N.p.. Web. 16 Sep 2013. <http://www.historynet.com/1776-book-review.htm>.
Greenberg, David. N.p.. Web. 16 Sep 2013. <http://hnn.us/article/12073>.
Andrews, Harris. "1776 (Book Review)." Historynet.com. N.p.. Web. 16 Sep 2013. <http://www.historynet.com/1776-book-review.htm>.
