In her letter wirtten in response to an American woman, Marian Evans Lewes utilizes an array of rhetorical strategies to convey her belief that the development of a writer is an ongoin process which is pressed on by “some force.” Instead of having a condescending tone, Lewes puts herself on the same level as the woman, taking a pathological route in addressing the woman. By using words such as “us” and “we”, Lewes sympathizes with the woman and reassures her that she has been in the same position.
This sympathetic approach not only informs the woman that what she is goin through is normal, but it lets her realize that no matter what status; well-known novelist or unknown woman; everyone goes through difficult times, and “the only hope is to try and unite the utmost activity with the utmost resignation.” Supporting this pathological route, Lewes utilizes first-person enriched syntax to illuminate her experiences and her beliefs on the developmental process of the reader.
By stating how she “began writing [works] with no great glory at all” and then flourished into the reknowened novelist she is now provides insight to the woman that, quite frankly, you go to start somewhere. This gives the woman “hope”, which is a necessity to all writers. Moreover, Lewes uses chronological syntax to illuminate that the development of a writer is ideed a time consuming matter.
Stating the she “entered [with] struggles”, the “began writing” and the wrote “ficiton which has been thought a great deal of” conveys her belief that the development of a writer is not a mere overnight happening, but is a long, drawn-out process. In her response to Melusia Fay Pierce, Marian Evans Lewes illuminates the fact that the development of a wirter is not ephemeral, but , just like her synatax, chronological, and time consuming, and to be successful, on must have “hope”.