Lily DiBenedetto

Eric Chambers

English 170 

25 September 2023

 

Children’s Book Rhetorical Analysis

With the recent banning of various children’s books across the country, a question is raised about how books made for younger audiences might impart specific values through subtle means.  In the story Worm Loves Worm, J.J. Austrian’s use of rhetorical strategies and language indicate a deeper meaning than what is printed literally on the page.

Within the genre of children’s literature, a strong focus on morals means that rhetorical devices are valuable in arguing the author’s intended lesson.  Worm Loves Worm utilizes both logos and pathos to convey the lesson that traditions can be broken in favor of individual happiness.  The most apparent example of logos within the text is the worms’ own argument for why certain expectations aren’t applicable to their lives.  The other bugs in the story continuously suggest the need for a plethora of traditions.  Almost all of these traditions are not only emotionally uninteresting to the worms, but also physically impossible for them to carry out.  When it is suggested that they need to dress a certain way, Worm states: “‘But we don’t have heads for hats’,” or “hands to hold flowers’,” (Austrian 13).  This simple argument about the impracticality of such conventions, which is made in various ways throughout the text, appeals to the reader’s logic by making it blatantly apparent that these expectations are not reasonable to push on the main couple.  Potentially, they may be outdated entirely.  In addition to a logical denouncement of traditional values, the author also utilizes pathos to point out the issue with these expectations.  The finale of the book involves the worms wishing to “‘change how it’s done’,” and a definitive statement that the worms were married on their own terms, simply “because Worm loves Worm” (Austrian 23-4).  By using the conclusion of the story to remind the reader that the worms love each other, Austrian is subtly suggesting that love comes before all else.  Therefore, if traditions get in the way of the worms’ love, they should be disregarded.  This appeals to the reader’s emotionality, and works to convince them that the expectations of marriage being pushed on the worms are inherently irrelevant, because they aren’t as important as the point of the marriage itself: love.  Clearly, logos and pathos are integral in arguing the author’s intended message throughout the text. 

In addition to the use of rhetorical devices, the author’s choice of language indicates his thoughts on the subject to the audience , as well as the lesson which should be taken away.  One of the most glaring choices made in the text is the decision to remove almost any distinction between “Worm” and “Worm”.  Other than a slight variation in how each characters’ eyes are illustrated, the main characters of this story have almost no differences between them.  The purpose of this choice is most obviously effective towards the end of the story: when the author is addressing the gendered expectations that the other characters have for the marriage.  As a final request, the other bugs demand the need for one of the worms to be a bride, and one to be a groom.  By making the worms indistinct from one another, with no gendered traits or pronouns, the author is making it impossible for the reader to assume a role for each of them. This choice reflects the author’s own ideology that the tradition of heteronormativity is unnecessary.  He is hinting that the gender of the worms- and consequently, any hypothetical couple-  is irrelevant to their ability to get married.  Another linguistic choice made by Austrian is the decision to repeat two different phrases throughout the text: “‘That’s how it’s always been done’,” and “‘Now can we be married?’,” (Austrian 4, 5).  The first phrase is repeated by Cricket, who is one of the worms’ “traditional” friends.  The second phrase is always repeated by the worms as a response to the first.  This choice of repetition shows that Austrian assumes the reader is also tired of dealing with the expectations of others.  The use of the word “now” in the worms’ questioning illustrates just how impatient they are to get married.  It also makes the continuous requests of the other bugs feel even more tedious.  Austrian, in this choice, assumes the audience will relate to the feeling of being barraged by supposed-to’s; accordingly, that they must be equally as impatient to live their lives free from the requests of others.  Not only does this linguistic action presume the story’s audience, but in doing so it also further reveals the author’s thoughts and intentions.  The reader is supposed to feel fed-up with the other bugs, because Austrian himself is fed-up.  The manner in which Austrian chooses to present his story, as well as the phrases he uses, reveal his assumptions and thoughts unmistakably.  

The banning of Worm Loves Worm leads to a curiosity about what the book was saying other than the short, simple phrases on the page.  Evidently, the story makes arguments and utilizes linguistic choices that purposefully impart a lesson, as well as subtly reveal the author’s thoughts on both the subject and the audience.  Those in a position to remove books like these from shelves have the power to decide whether or not these subtleties are deserving of being censored.