"Ello poppets!" Hee hee/ Still tickles me, that.
Anyhoo, yes, your blog is late. It is late because I am dying.
Too dramatic? Yes, of course, but I am feeling a bit sorry for myself at the moment, so I am going full on weepy, whiny weasel mode. I am feeling quite old, quite creaky and quite bruised and battered.
I spent my holiday weekend in Vermont, learning how to snowboard.
Or, learning how to fall not-so-gracefully-as-many-times-as-humanly-possible-on-my-oversized-derriere...whichever you prefer. Oh, the pain.
So, feeling a bit traumatized by the fact that age is NOT just a number as the smarmy optimists always say, led to me moping about on my couch feeling utterly useless. Which led me to TED, my "happy place" in times of unsettledness.
Perusing through the different talks brought me to Elizabeth Gilbert, an author who wrote a book I started to read but never finished called Eat, Pray, Love.
I listened to the talk, then replayed it, and suddenly..I felt better.
Yes, my oversized derriered is still smarting, my calves still burn, and muscles I never knew I had are still sore; my soul though, my soul is soothed.
So, in light of the fact that speeches start tomorrow, and knowing full well that many of you are more than a bit nervous about that, the assignment this week is fairly easy.
At some point, I would like you to watch the TED talk (posted under SOME FAVE SPEECHES) and then tell me your impression of it.
First, tell me what you think her thesis was, tell me how you think she delivered it, tell me if you found it effective, and then critique her. Did she have a hook? What was it? How did she deliver her ideas? Where did she establish ethos? How did she appeal to pathos? Logos? What did you think of her ideas?
Tell me, tell me, tell me!!
(substantive response/50pts)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
that was really long...
what was?
I'm confused a little, is our speech supposed to be really conversational and friendly, or assertive and formal?
Depends on your message, your thesis, and what you (and if) you want the subtext to be implicit or explicit. If your speech is persuasive, you will probably want to be a bit more assertive; if you are doing an invitational argument then you may want to consider conversational or something of that sort.
My speech was informal and fun to write! ^^
Bunje, why do you do this to me! My computer is slow as sin and it's going to take me almost an hour to load the thing! RAWR!!!>.<
First of all, I would like to say that I agree with the notion that we need to change our out look on the “creative process” thing that was mentioned. We really shouldn’t stereotype an entire profession due to the actions of a few drunken laments that we’ve acknowledged as famous writers. It really makes the whole writing profession seem less romantic then before. I like the idea of being a writer; it’s what I’m good at. I don’t like the idea of having people assume that I’m mentally unstable because of it. Which I have to admit was one of the things that really made me take notice to what she was saying in her speech. Apparently all writers are accused of being crazy thanks to the creative process, not just the select few.
I have to admit that I also enjoyed the subtle jabs of humor that she placed through out her talk, it kept me rather entertained as I listened and made sure that I didn’t zone out as she was speaking. That is a feat in and of itself if keeps my limited attention span occupied long enough to get the topic across.
What ever that topic was, I still am not 100% sure just exactly what she was trying to say with it. It was sort of like she was trying to tell everyone to lay off the writers for a while since they struggle enough with their own thoughts to give us what we want. That we shouldn’t blame then for the few times they don’t live up to their past accomplishments. I got the notion that she wanted us to lay off and enjoy the creative process as it occurs.
And apparently she talks to the empty corners of rooms too. Apparently a lot of people do.
Glad I’m not the only one.
As a side note: I didn’t know that that was the definition of what a genius had been. I suppose that you learn something everyday. I always just assumed that they were called muses…
Anyways, it was pretty easy to tell that she was credible-she is a writer after all- so it was obvious that she would know a thing or two or five about the creative process. She was funny, relatable, enthusiastic, and above all well rehearsed. She appeared confident in what she had to say and that made her all the more listenable. I like it when people actually know what they’re going to say, makes them seem smarter.
All in all, it seemed like a really good talk.
FYI: I have to do this at Stockton College because my computer(s) at home really don’t seem to like me and either won’t load the sight or won’t play the talk because apparently we don’t have the proper systems to play it on. RAWR!!!!! >M<
hoorya for myra! she was able to post her comment without Matty's help for once! I <3 a working computer!
I honestly didn’t understand this speech. I thought it was a bunch of unorganized thoughts mangled together to try to make her sound smart. But that’s just my first impression of it. I guess she made some good points, but her hand gestures distracted me too much. I know I’m not an amazing speech-giver, that’s for sure, but I expected a lot more from such a supposed credible writer. But anyway, I think her thesis had to do with the difference between being a genius and having one. If you have a genius, you can be relieved of the pressure of making something perfect or living up to a previous accomplishment. This genius will help you finish your project and take partial credit, either for the good or the bad that comes out of it. If a person was simply considered a genius, then he would be pressurized to live up to an almost impossible and egotistical standard. Again, I didn’t necessarily like the way she delivered her speech. It was really boring and inconsistent. She would jump to topics that I didn’t find very relevant and couldn’t draw any true connections. Her hook was the stories she would tell about how creativity creeps up on you, acting as a “genius”, and gives you the information needed to be successful. She establishes ethos because she’s a best-selling author. She has enough knowledge and experience in the area of creativity that she can talk about it and people can take her seriously. She appeals to the audience’s pathos by using humor and trying to be enthusiastic about what she’s talking about. She appeals to logos by being very informational and giving plenty of facts to support her ideas. I didn’t really think her ideas were really interesting. It felt more at times like I was being taught a history lesson or something. She had potential, but she just didn’t appeal to me.
I had planned on typing up my blog before Wednesday, (considering the fact that my internet copped out just as I was posting my blog last week) but the three day weekend screwed my schedule up. It’s okay though because at least I’ve had a day to think about my answer.
I think that the thesis of Dr. Tedd’s talk was that people have always had a twisted view on the lives of the creative. People have thought them strange, ill, or otherwise doomed. They see “too much creativity” as a curse- of sorts, instead if the miracle; the true act of God that is represented in each new idea. I thought the delivery of this speech was great. It was told in a way that was easy for almost anyone to understand. It was almost conversational.
I think that ethos was established once you were aware that Dr. Tedd was the author of a bestselling novel. The pathos was established when she told how she went to the grocery store and people would come up to her and ask her these odd questions. I think this because one can most likely trace back to a time in their life when they were posed with an astonishing question or when they were approached by a group of people interested in conversation. I would say that logos were established when she was explaining her point through a sort of structured summary. Basically, I’m talking about when she explained the “Allah Allah!” that progressed to “Olay Olay!”
As for the hook, I would say it was the first story about the poet and running to capture the inspiration. I say this because this is the point that caught my attention the most out of the first half. That being said, the speech didn’t really mean much to me but after the “hook”, I started paying more attention to the words and sort of got into it. I can’t say whether I particularly agree or disagree with her, but I liked the speech as a whole.
Jen:
I definitely can relate to your not understanding this speech…it is a little hard to follow. I don’t know if I would say it was completely “unorganized”, but I can see why you said that. I also think your idea for the thesis is interesting. I don’t quite have a grasp of all you are saying about “having genius”, but it sounds intense!
Can I just say that I loved the Dobby the house elf Harry Potter reference? I loved that part. It made me laugh for a couple of seconds before I remembered that Dobby died. Than I was sad.
I listened to Gilbert’s speech twice. The first time I didn’t focus enough. I only listened to some aspects of it without grasping the core meaning. The second time I slowly mentally dissected each part, trying to discover what she was truly saying. I believe that her main thesis was everyone has the ability to succeed. Each and every person has that creative “genius” that allows them to reach out and produce something great in their life. For her it was so far “Eat, Pray, Love”, and even she had some difficulty creating that, but she didn’t let anything like writer’s block stand in her way. She pushed through it and succeeded, which is what everyone needs to do in life.
Elizabeth Gilbert, as well as being an exceptional writer, had a good grasp on the ability of how to be effective in public speaking. The way she spoke allowed her to connect well with the audience and made you believe what she was saying. Her eye contact and hand gestures, as well as control of the stage, were all effective. She didn’t falter but knew her points she wanted to make exactly. She gathered her thoughts and was not all over the place, but instead tied everything together. Her powerful gaze and stance on the stage made her seem in control and passionate about everything she was saying. Her ideas were right on track, and I was never lost with what she was saying. It all flowed and made sense. I liked how she incorporated humor and made the audience seem more at ease, like she was having a one on one conversation with them. One thing that I noticed was sometimes she seemed a little exasperated. I don’t know whether that was her part of her effective tone or she was just getting too caught up on what she was saying. Another thing I noticed was that she kept saying that her book was a “freakish success” or something along the lines of that. I felt like she should be more confident on her book’s rise to the top, but then again that maybe would have thrown off the tone of her speech and made her sound too cocky.
When she began speaking about the Greeks and the Romans, I was very interested on how she was going to tie that back into her original idea. I was interested to find out about how the Greeks and Romans perceived creativity way back before artists were widely acclaimed. To me, that was the hook. I liked how the Romans looked at creative genius as a “magical divine entity” that lived within the walls of the studio. I liked how she brought that back to modern day artists and people in general and how she said that we have that creative genius in us, but sometimes we need to just let it out. We need to let go of it to release our inward feelings, because if not all that creative energy is pent up inside not knowing how to get out, which in turn causes the person great distress which could lead to insanity. I liked how she talked about fairies following people around, rubbing “fairy juice on people’s projects”. I thought it was funny, yet interesting to think that that would make for an easier way to explain the creative ingenious that appears out of nowhere on certain artistic projects.
And yes, getting to the final always great ethos, pathos, and logos. Her visual aspects really helped create the ethos of her speech. The way she spoke and made eye contact with the crowd made the audience believe what she was saying was, in fact, credible. Logos still is the most hard to decipher for me, I am not sure why, but I believe that the logos was created by her facts about the Greeks and Romans. It was factual information, right so wouldn’t that be logos? The pathos was invented from her stories of how the poet tried to chase down her poem and grabbed it by the tail. All the stories she told, humor, and feelings she conveyed like her anxiety over the book, helped the audience feel more emotionally connected with her therefore creating pathos.
I think her thesis was, basically, it would be easier on creative people and society to think of creativity as an unseen external force. I think she delivered it fairly well, though I will say I prefer Classical Music Man. All in all, it was pretty effective.
Her real hook was the little bits of humor and anecdotes that she kept slipping in throughout the speech. Parts like the Attack of the Poems and "fairy juice" are really what kept me listening. Without them, she probably would have lost me after five minutes, tops.
Gilbert established her ethos by clearly stating the fact that she was a best selling author. Luckily she said this early on, too, because her constant pacing and sort of wringing of her hands were worrying me.
She appealed to pathos through humor, anecdotes, and humorous anecdotes. I think this was the strongest part of her speech.
Gilbert appealed to logos with a whole slew of historical references and facts. Though her logos wasn't the strongest part of her speech, it was enough to carry her through.
And now I can't stop thinking about how much I wish JK Rowling hadn't killed Dobby off in the last book...
This speech is founded on an interesting, aged idea that most societies got rid of long ago. It is interesting, but people have long since shucked it, and it wasn't some grand movement or decision that did it. It was human nature. What the renaissance was was a call to reason. A call to rationality compared to religion and the protective bubble that it provides. It's an interesting idea, and certainly an attractive one to someone deathly afraid of having gotten lucky and being called on it. Humans may have been less narcissistic when they thought a genie was giving them inspiration, but that isn't human nature. We like being considered better. We like being considered godlike in our improbable brilliance. But arguing with your own subconscious is a defense mechanism, making a lack of a stroke of brilliance (luck) not your fault. No more.
And she admits this, which is impressive, but it is still a defense against something you can make peace with and move on from. Once you accept that the creative process, like fate, is 'a fickle bitch' (Ben from Lost) you can move on healthily and spend time trying to get lucky with the creative process, rather than create one that abdicates you of responsibility.
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them. -P.J. O'Rourke It's fair, it's honest, and it is why artists go insane. They trust luck, rather than accepting that they got lucky. It's human nature, and we create defense mechanisms against it, rather than going 'what did I do wrong? Oh. I got lucky and assumed it would happen again.' But I'm getting a rant warmed up, so I'll stop there.
And now a critique. Her thesis: the creative process is a flighty thing. Artists should not be held responsible for the whims of their subconscious minds. Her hook: she describes herself being a writer, and that something has never happened before. That thing is that people like her book. This was very effective in that it establishes her credibility on the creative process, as well as throwing a bit of humor out to keep the audience engaged. It also makes the audience qustion, 'she's rethinking her career because she's a success now?' And that question allows her to segue into why she's rethinking, and explain that and elaborate on how for the other eighteen minutes. Her logos is established interestingly, in that she makes the logic clear by encouraging the audience to throw it away. She makes the point that we all have a genius, then encourages the audience to follow her train of thought despite its apparent lack of logical sense by pointing out that when it comes to the creative process in the subconscious, next to nothing does make logical sense. Once logic is out the window and anything can make sense, she can begin to build her house of cards on nothing. Very impressive. And as to her pathos appeal, its littered throughout. None of us want to take blame on anything. Wouldn't it be nice if it was accepted that when you couldn't think of anything, it wasn't your fault, but the fault of the crazy hobo that lives in your brain and gives you ideas for being wasted on gin that day? Yes it would, and that kind of staying blameless from something where no one is at fault appeals to people's sense of justice.
Well, glad that's finished. Now to take about fifty advil and go lay down.
@Sarah: Poor Dobby. *sigh* I agree with you about the anecdotes. Without those I would've checked out.
While listening to Elizabeth Gilbert speak, I felt an immediate sense of comfort. Her voice was soft and relaxing, so I was concerned with the possibility of losing concentration and dozing off. But as she finished introducing herself and went on to talk about writing, she seemed to be really connected with what she does, so I began to listen more closely. Even as she proceeded, I noticed bit of her true personality showing. The subtle hints of humor kept my attention while also loosening up the audience.
I believe her thesis was based on what she researched about the ancient Greeks and Romans and their creative techniques. The purpose was to find out if other societies had better ideas about how to help creative people manage the emotional risks they take. She mentions that many great writers have died from being unable to handle the stress that comes directly from being creative and how, back then, there may have been a way to better take care of it. From there, she began to describe this idea of the “creative genius” and the difference of being one and having one. Basically, you couldn’t take all the credit for your work if it was amazing, because everyone knew the “genius” helped. But if it was terrible, you wouldn’t be the only person to blame either. So it was a win-win.
She established her ethos from the research she did, and from simply being a successful best-selling author. From that, she was definitely credible and knew what she was talking about. The way she delivered her information was easy enough so that the audience could understand just what she was trying to say. I’m sure the idea is way more complicated, but she simplified it while tying it into what she was trying to say about creativity. I believe she was successful because I seem to get it.
But, if I were to critique her in any way, it would be in her visual performance. I understand she’s a writer and not a “speech maker” and I know it’s definitely hard to stand up there and talk for almost 20 minutes. But I would suggest she loosen up a little bit, walk around the stage more and switch the tone of her voice. That way, the audience would always have to keep an eye on her, and they wouldn’t just stare at her standing in one place fidgeting with her hands the whole time. Now, I’m not saying she didn’t speak well, because she did, it flowed very nicely. And I’m definitely being a jerk because I know I couldn’t do that. But there are always things that can be improved!
She used a few hooks while she spoke. One was the story about her encounter with a poet (Ruth Stone I think it was?) and how the genius would basically just run into her as she worked in the fields and she’d run into the house to write it down before she missed it. This made me want to listen to her a little more. She appealed to the pathos of the audience by her enthusiasm and love of what she does, as well as with the humor she subtlety pokes in. Her appeal to logos was found in the facts she used which seemed like it could appeal to both left and right brained people.
Overall, I was pleased with her introduction of this “creative genius” idea. It was just something new to me and I believe it was pretty effective.
Morgan-
"She didn’t falter but knew her points she wanted to make exactly. She gathered her thoughts and was not all over the place, but instead tied everything together. Her powerful gaze and stance on the stage made her seem in control and passionate about everything she was saying."
I agree with everything you said right here. You put exactly what I was thinking perfectly into words! Our blogs are generally the same, so I don't have much to argue with! hahaha <3
Elizabeth Gilbert, regardless of whether or not she believes it is simply because of a "glimpse of god" that decided to bless her while writing her book, is obviously a very gifted author, as well as a skilled public speaker. I think her thesis was that people do not possess genius, that it is something that presents itself to each of us at any given time, and it is up to us to decide what we want to do with it at such a time. Her point was that genius should not be expected of anyone, nor should anyone feel pressured to perform at such impossibly high levels consistently. At one point in her speech, she said something along the lines of "genius is not a part of us". In her mind, if that is true, none should have to carry a burden of the expectations of others (or themselves) since they never really know when the daemon or genius is going to hit them. Gilbert delivered her ideas eloquently, always using the right word to describe her emotions and thoughts. She spoke with joy, in a tone that told her audience that she was passionate about the topic. She spoke to the crowd as she would to a group of friends, with appropriate smiles and laughs accompanying her droll sense of humor.
Gilbert's credibility is proven even before her speech. Anyone who is a best-selling author has automatic credibility with her audience. She further establishes her ethos with the mini history lessons about the Greek and Roman concepts of "daemons" and "genius", and the origins of "ole!". This is a speaker who has obviously thoroughly researched her topic and is positive about her facts. Her ideas on the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance periods was actually the hook for me, as well as being some interesting information. She said that people began to "refer to this or that artist as being a genius, rather than having a genius". From there, I thought that she was going to begin talking about how this notion improved creativity, because we had always been taught about how the Renaissance was a period of great artistic expansion and creativity. Rather, she took a completely different route, claiming that, in reality, this period placed too much expectations on creative minds, pressuring so-called "geniuses" into creating consisitenly magnificent works. This unsuspected turn of events kept me enthralled throughout the remainder of her speech. Her unique views were demonstrated in such a way that appealed to the pathos of her audience. She spoke with an air of familiarity, as if she was speaking to a friend. Gilbert's calm demeanor served to not only put her audience at ease, but also herself. I wasn't really too sure about her use of logos, because the speech was full of abstract ideas that certainly do not make sense to many people. If I had to pinpoint one use of logos, I would say her anecdote of the Greeks and Romans. Whether or not you believe her theory of genius, Gilbert's ideas can be put to use by each of us whenever we feel like a task is too much, or that our final product will be inadequate. "If you never happened to believe in the first place that the most extraordinary aspects of your being came from you, but.. if you believed that they were on loan to you, that could make all the difference". Genius will not always strike us when we are attempting to write a blog, or an essay, or a speech, yet as long as we do what we humanly can, there is nothing more to be asked of us. This thinking will remove that pressure you place on yourself to display magnificence, and allow you to show up and perform your task to the best of your abilities without the fear of inadequacy.
Dan P --It's an interesting idea, and certainly an attractive one to someone deathly afraid of having gotten lucky and being called on it. Humans may have been less narcissistic when they thought a genie was giving them inspiration, but that isn't human nature. We like being considered better. We like being considered godlike in our improbable brilliance. But arguing with your own subconscious is a defense mechanism, making a lack of a stroke of brilliance (luck) not your fault. No more.
As I was watching the speech, I was thinking of something along these lines, and you worded it perfectly. The idea of fleeting genius is novel to us, but I couldn't help but think that the speaker was using it almost as an excuse that she can fall back on if her book happens to be far inferior to her last one.
She reminds me of Ms. Kain/Cain...
Sara-
haha so true, but I guess it is just because great minds think alike :)
Erik-
"I think her thesis was that people do not possess genius, that it is something that presents itself to each of us at any given time, and it is up to us to decide what we want to do with it at such a time."
I didn't think of it like that but that is a really good point. I like your whole new view on it because it is so true. Creative thoughts just seem to pop into our heads without warning and whether we take advantage of them or not is entirely up to us.
Like usual, your whole blog was really good.
The thesis of this speech is that the connections between creativity and depression are illogical and unhealthy. She delivered this thesis in a roundabout kind of way, first explaining her personal experiences with this connection and then moving on to how she needs to protect her psyche. The hook is really the way that she uses humor to draw the audience into her idea. She also uses common feelings to relate to the pathos of the audience’s feelings of self doubt and fear of already achieving the best they could be.
She delivers her ideas as a human, just a regular person who happened to stumble upon this marvelous success of a book, through little effort of herself. This ultimately bases upon her whole theme and creates a sense of normalcy from the author. However he ethos is established very quickly, when she states that her book was an international best seller. Bam! I wrote a very popular book, so I must know what I’m talking about. Logos is established when she really gets into explaining deamons and geniuses. The fact that she went to different cultures to solve a problem she has with our own makes a large amount of sense.
Her ideas, were great… the undercurrent of ‘it is not my fault, no matter what happens’ not so much. This main of idea of ‘having’ a genius rather than being one is a way to make the self less worthy of blame. As a rather uncreative (or so I feel) person, I cannot relate to the need to put something down on paper, so I relate my results to the effort I’ve put into something, rather than the effort of a intangible sentient being. Overall – interesting ideas, though I’m not sure I agree. By all means, reshape the way we see artists and help them separate from the ‘alcoholic, manic depressives’ that she categorized artists as. One true question though – if these people are so truly unhappy, than how have any light, beautiful works come to be?
A Comment in General:
Wow! The amount of different thesis found in the first few responses is daunting. This is one of those 'can't have a wrong answer questions'... Fun!
Ali B
I think her thesis is that every person has a genius inside them, and the personality of our genius determines the outcome of our works. Ex. crazy mad scientist genius = crazy mad science genius work. I found her thesis and speech very effective. I’ve often wondered where the wild ideas that pop into my head come from. The wild ideas are often good, but other times they leave me shaking my head, saying, “What? Where did that come from?”
Her hook was that she was that she was slightly funny. I say slightly because she didn’t make the speech a “look-how-funny-i-am-fest.” She had a serious topic that every once in awhile, she spiced up with a little quip or two. While she wasn’t laugh-out-loud-funny, when the speech finished, I thought about how I enjoyed the last twenty minutes and that I wasn’t distracted from her main point by comedic effect.
She would deliver an anecdote before revealing her point. The story from the Greeks and Romans having little geniuses inside themselves led to the idea of people. Ruth Stone led to the idea that creativity is alive and we need to catch or contain it, less it gets away. The dancer of Africa led to the founding of the word Ole which led to the point that believing we have a genius in us, who is there only for a certain period, is better than believing our creativity can run out because of ourselves. A point followed each story. The listener was enticed by a story, given an idea, and before the listener could get bored, they were given another story.
She established ethos with the fact that she is a writer, but also the fact she is a successful published author with another book in the works. When she talked about meeting poet Ruth Stone and musician Tom Waits, this establishes more credibility because the listen thinks, “well if other successful creative people will listen to her, then maybe I should to.” She appealed to pathos by using the idea of a God or other being to run our creative minds. When she talks about Tom Waits being in the car, asking to God, “Really? Now?” It makes the reader reflect on times when they have talked to God, whether it’s in church or during a time of crisis. She appealed to logos by using believable stories from trustworthy sources. Like the Greeks and Romans or Ruth Stone.
I liked that she made the creative process understandable to all. By breaking down the complicated process into an everyday action, like a word on the tip of your tongue, everyone in the audience can enjoy her speech. Now the doctors, carpenters, and lawyers get it, not just the artists and musicians
She is an extremely strong speaker but an extremely sarcastic one. She uses humor to target almost everything. She keeps on mentioning her amazing book that everyone loved and told her if she was afraid to ever try to top that.
She appeals to the logos by stating the Greeks that thought that genius was not something that was available to everyone. There were things daemons that helped the Greeks and Socrates backed that idea by adding that he also had a daemon that told him things. That came out the dark and helped him discover new ideas and aspects of life.
Her ethos and pathos were kind of like combined into one. She said that genius is inside everyone. If someone wants to reach out towards then cool but if you don’t want to then you just don’t want to. Having the genius in you is both ethos and pathos because ethically you are born with common sense as most say and therefore you are also born with genius. And this attacks I in a good way the emotional appeal of having genius in you when you are born. If you want to access it then that great but you can also do what almost the entire world does it ignore. Ignore your capability to be one the greatest … in the world. I mean she didn’t really say those exact words but I know that she meant it in that sort of way. The idea that we have the right to choose to attempt to use our genius. If we want to be intelligent or accelerate at anything then that requires motivation and disciple. Which is also what is required to have Genius. So wouldn’t genius be trying to achieve something great and amazing. For example discovering the planets revolve around the sun.
I enjoyed listening to her because she was very entertaining. She knew who she was talking to and she was interested actually she was deeply interested I what she was actually saying. She was funny, sarcastic, and entertaining. I would personally go to one of her speeches because her hook is the way she talks you. It make one want to listen and further investigate the topic. I thought that she was one of the best speakers that I had ever listened to and I enjoyed it a lot. Her ethos, pathos, and logos were all present. And most importantly her speech was organized and easy for an average person to comprehend.
Caitlin M: I agree with on that our genius of derived from our personality. Your idea kind of goes hand in hand with mine. But you blog truly said what i wanted to say.
I’m going to hate dissecting this speech, because I love it dearly. She is a wonderful speaker, and if you, Bunje, happen to own Eat, Pray, Love I would love to have a chance to borrow it, if you don’t mind. The dry humor and obvious skepticism made me like her, and her point was a true one. I really liked this speech, but here goes my scrutiny.
I read through the blogs and I know there are a variety of answers there, but I really believe her thesis was something along the lines of ‘although it may not be readily or easily changed- or maybe changed at all- you should consider for me whether maybe the Greeks and Romans had it right with this one.’ I loved her delivery and found it quite effective and persuasive. Honestly, with all we’re told to believe these days, is the idea of a healthier more fleeting genius so farfetched? As for her hook, I think it started right away with the anecdote about people approaching her after Eat Pray Love came out. Her humor and personality shone through, and from the word DOOMED on, I was hooked. From there on out she followed a slightly roundabout but very encompassing delivery and hit all of her points acutely and clearly. As for ethos, pathos and logos, well, first allow me to say that I love them. They are potentially the easiest things to pick out in the world, and I find myself doing so all the time now. That said her ethos kind of starts with her. She is a critically acclaimed author, after all. But beyond that, she speaks like one. Phrases like “which has caused me to have to sort of recalibrate my whole relationship with this work” and “a scrap heap of broken dreams with your mouth filled with bitter ash of failure” speak highly of her intellect, and her mannerisms while talking also decidedly signify she is a writer, as she relies more heavily on the words to make a point or get a laugh than she does her body or face. Her pathos is established fairly quickly too. She speaks like herself- not like someone wrote the speech as an essay and is having her read it- and that encourages empathy and sympathy on the listeners’ part. As soon as she says she’s afraid of seaweed though, she’s got you. How could you not love someone so human, so easy to relate to? (I, by the way, am afraid of seaweed). Lastly, logos is represented in the many historical references made. The origins of genius and óle lead us on a logical, step by step, proven, factual, thought journey that deposits us exactly where she wants us. The above is pretty much one big reason I would love to read her book, which is now on my to-do list. Mad props for finding this lovely speech Bunj, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Alison-
It's not that they're all truly unhappy. It's that so many of them grow to be unhappy, strained and stressed having to live up to themselves and those around them that the public has begun to see that mass as the only mass. There are happy artist, just as there are averted disasters and happy families- but we all know what kind end up on the headlines.
We only know what we're told. So she's trying to tell us something different. =]
Everywhere I go now, people treat me like I’m doomed…saying,
Aren’t you afraid that you’ll never be able to top that?
Aren’t you afraid that you’ll continue writing and write a book that no one cares about at all?
The same thing happened when I was young and I said that I wanted to be a writer. People asked me, aren’t you afraid you’ll die on a heap of broken dreams with your mouth filled with the bitter ash of failure?
My question is this, why should people be afraid of the work that they believe they were sent here to do?
Instant hook. I found myself listening closely. My ear catches onto something. She refers to her bestseller over and over again as a “freakish success.” It’s as if it really doesn’t matter to her, but the work itself is what satisfies her. She continues talking about this fear of being genius. My thoughts scream out, “What is it with everyone thinking that creative people have mental anguish?” As she continues from this fear to what it has done to creative people nowadays to the origin of what creativeness came from in the minds of Romans and Greeks, I find myself admiring her transitions. It is fluid, flowing smoothly without giving away a hint of disturbance.
After it ended, I sat thinking. It seemed clear as day that she is saying that creative people today have a negative connotation to them, that with this gift of creativity comes anguish which she believes stems from the fact that we now believe that creativity comes from ourselves. Instead of succumbing to this socially accepted principle, why not make genius something outside of ourselves and do what we love? Instead of setting ourselves up for disappointment or failing to meet people’s expectations? The icing on the cake was when she implied that genius can be in everyone, that it can be spread everywhere. This really won me over. I think that is her thesis. She also wants to make it so that creative people don’t meet a grim end and can manage the emotional risks they take.
She delivered the entire speech in such a strong yet soft voice; I was knocked off my feet. She used humor throughout her speech to garner some laughter from the audience. She engaged the audience, used her arms and walked around stage while she spoke. For a writer, she had good speaking skills.
She established her ethos from beginning, saying that she was a writer and the author of a best-seller. From that, she had a lot of information to back up what she had to say, making her seem knowledgeable about what she had to say. She was credible and trustworthy. She also didn’t use too much of a formal diction and used everyday words that a majority of people would understand her. This helped her communicate to the audience much easier. She established pathos of the audience with her use of personal stories that the audience can relate to as they laughed in certain parts and such. Her appeal to logos could be found in the information about ancient Rome and Greece and what she came up from their way of describing what creativity came from.
I really enjoyed listening to this speech and I believe that what she said is true. I really think that she had thought it out time and time again. This is not something that just came to her on a whim, it required time and thought. I really like her ideas and I think it is true that, when given the power, humans do tend to end up narcissistic and egotistical. However, if creativity does not come from ourselves but rather can be taken away from us, it will not only be us anymore. We cannot take all the credit anymore. This was really well done. Kudos to Elizabeth Gilbert. Love!
To Myra:
"First of all, I would like to say that I agree with the notion that we need to change our out look on the “creative process” thing that was mentioned. We really shouldn’t stereotype an entire profession due to the actions of a few drunken laments that we’ve acknowledged as famous writers. It really makes the whole writing profession seem less romantic then before. I like the idea of being a writer; it’s what I’m good at. I don’t like the idea of having people assume that I’m mentally unstable because of it."
You're right. It does make the profession seem less romantic and everyone falsely thinking that writers are mentally unstable only makes it harder to gain more respect as time passes and people begin to believe the lie.
"I got the notion that she wanted us to lay off and enjoy the creative process as it occurs."
I got that too, especially at the end. I loved the ending and what you wrote basically reminded me of it as I thought "ole" right after reading this sentence. I'm going to say that all day tomorrow now! Such a fun word!
I watched the TED talk twice. The first time my interest was waning, so I forced myself to take notes on everything she said that seemed important. Twenty minutes is an extremely long time for my attention span to last, so I felt quite accomplished as I held onto every word Elizabeth Gilbert spoke. I was honestly kind of confused as to the main point of her speech after the first time through. It seemed like there were several, but very similar main points. The second time, I had to take notes again in order to even understand all of the numerous things she was talking about (I have the attention span of a spoon unfortunately). From both times, I have learned that she is quite an amazing speaker. She kicks butt at public speaking, and some of you seem to be bothered by her hand gestures…I frankly didn’t even mind them. They seemed natural to me. She looked extremely comfortable, like it was just her and I having an everyday conversation, and most of us use our hands to portray our ideas. She had very extraordinary ideas, ones that I never even considered before. I’m actually tempted to read her ‘freakish success’ of a book after that, just to understand more about her and this ‘creative genius’ that so enthralls her.
“Everyone of my books kills me a bit more,” was a simply amazing quote from my perspective. I never could have guessed that writing books causes so much anguish and suffering. I know it caused much stress and writer’s block, but I never realized to the point of suicide and just ceasing from writing books in general. “Your next book will never compare,” or “Aren’t you afraid of not being a success?” trouble the minds of many writers. Everyone’s so negative to all of those authors who pour their heart and soul into their writing.
I think her thesis is that in order to capture your creative genius, you just have to ignore your fears and do your job. She believes that creativity should be viewed as it was to the Romans and the Greeks. At the moment when you feel like you can write no more, you just have to write anyway. Because that’s what you’re meant to do even if you’ve forgotten for a moment. If your genius is with you, then continue along with it. But if it’s not, then just continue anyway and shine through. I found her thesis and the way she demonstrated it pretty effective, and she had a great deal of support to back up her thesis like the Romans, the Greeks, the Renaissance, and Ruth Stone. I also got from Elizabeth Gilbert that she felt that our creativity should not lead us down dark paths of anguish and despair, but instead continue to lead us in a positive direction, even if our ‘genius’ isn’t so amazing.
I felt her hook was first when she mentioned the Romans and the Greeks and their belief on where creativity came from. It sparked my interest, at least, when she started talking about that. Then, Ruth Stone’s story about feeling and hearing poems rushing towards her over the landscape really caught my curiosity. Especially when she would almost miss the poem, and grab it by its ‘tail’ before it drifted along to someone else, and how it came out backwards from the last word to the first. That’s just amazing, honestly. She was entertaining, overall, when she threw in several jokes here and there and her passionate, eloquent manner of speaking.
She establishes ethos right from the start, by mentioning her ‘freakish success’ from her best-selling novel. She cites many examples, as I’ve mentioned before, throughout her speech that show her audience just how well researched and rehearsed she is. She appealed to pathos by adding bits of humor into her speech to show her warmer side. It was evident right from the start that she has so much passion for her writing. Lastly, she appeals to logos by supporting her opinion with plenty of examples and facts.
All in all, I’ve never really thought this in depth about such a topic. I’m still on the fence of whether I really liked this speech or not…But it was still quite an interesting perspective to learn about.
Jen-
I have to agree with you on not really grasping the whole concept of this speech. It was confusing at first, but watch it a second time and i'm sure it'll be much easier to comprehend (if you can bare it). I felt that most of her stories did mesh with her speech however, but that's just my opinion.
Don’t be afraid to do your job, even if the ‘creative genius’ hasn’t shown up.
To me, that is the theme of Elizabeth Gilbert’s speech. To be honest, it wasn’t until the last few minutes that I understood what she was trying to say to the audience. But once the last few moments came, it all seemed to fit.
I loved this speech, just because it didn’t feel like a speech. It felt as if she was talking to me, teaching me a life lesson. At the beginning of the speech, she appealed to the ethos of the audience, introducing herself as one of the currently bestselling authors. And she made it seem like she was just another one of us, not one of the famous authors. You watch her speech, and she just feels so comfortable, she walks around connecting to the audience, not a bit of hesitation in her voice or mannerisms. At first, it seems like a comedy show, she gets the audience laughing and I think that was her hook. Once that they learned that this speech wasn’t going to some formal lecture they relaxed and embraced what she had to say. She appealed to the logos of the audience by talking about the history of the ‘genius’ in the roman and Greek time periods. To me, all the stories that she told appealed to the pathos of the audience, allowing them to connect with what she was saying.
I must say, I don’t really know if I believe her ideas. It was all a bit abstract. To think that there is another creature feeding me my creative ideas is a difficult concept to grasp. I was definitely one of those scientific people that questioned a fairy sprinkling juice on our projects. But it is a fun one to think about, if I could blame all my crappy work on the fact that my ‘creative genius’ didn’t show up today, I’ll take it. If you look on the right hand little blurb, in the ‘about this talk,’ one sentence sums it up. “It's a funny, personal and surprisingly moving talk.” Surprisingly moving, is what really hit me when I read it. It isn’t until those last few moments when a wave of comfort overcomes you. She allows you to feel relief for all that you have done, and are going to do.
As Sara said, one hook that she had was definitely the story about the poet Ruth Stone and how she could feel and hear a poem coming at her. It was a story that got people thinking and laughing, something that kept the audience intrigued.
After giving my speech, and seeing others give their speeches, I must say, we are far from that comfort. She effortlessly moves across the stage, speaking to hundreds of people, and her hand gestures are just something about her. Come on, we all know those people that talk with their hands. Just looking at her, she looks a bit frazzled, one of those crazy writers, but I soon forget about her messy pig tales, and listen to what she is saying.
And I personally loved her transitions. She would finish an idea, and pose a question, asking the audience why, and effortless move on to another topic. To me, it just felt so smooth, and easy to the ears.
And I would like to say that I am sadly home sick today, something that rarely ever happens to me. I never get sick. But apparently the stomach flu has passed through my house; my mom, dad, and I all sharing barf buckets. Just kidding, but seriously, I am dying. And my sister is disgusted by all of it, just wait Shaina, you will get sick too. But I hope not, it sucks.
Myra-
“As a side note: I didn’t know that that was the definition of what a genius had been. I suppose that you learn something everyday. I always just assumed that they were called muses…”
Me too! I was a bit surprised when she first started talking about geniuses, because I had my own view of what one was. But when she started talking about what a real genius was I was intrigued, because I have never heard it that way before.
Jen-
"I honestly didn’t understand this speech. I thought it was a bunch of unorganized thoughts mangled together to try to make her sound smart. But that’s just my first impression of it. I guess she made some good points, but her hand gestures distracted me too much. I know I’m not an amazing speech-giver, that’s for sure, but I expected a lot more from such a supposed credible writer."
I agree with your dissection of the speech, but I disagree with this part of your blog. I feel as if most people talk with their hands to communicate it makes the person more personable by exercising body language verse just standing their like a totem pole. I don't think she was trying to say smart things or speak intelligently. She seemed very relateable to me.
I never read Eat, Pray, Love but my sister did and she loved it. She's been trying to get me to read it for quite some time but I haven't had the chance. I think this is a sign that I should pick it up...
That's beside the point. Elizabeth Gilbert delivered a very personable speech. Listening to her calmed me down, as she had a very gentle personality. Her movements and tone were gentle and relaxing. It's interesting to note that while she was working so hard to make her point, she showed little to no effort. I respect that.
The first thing I noticed while listening to Gilbert was her humor. Anyone that can make fun of themselves with a genuine smile on their face deserves a thumb up in my book. In addition her allusion to Harry Potter by mentioning Dobby (also Carly's pet on pet society!), helped to appeal to the audience's pathos. She tapped in to emotions by making everyone laugh. That's a great technique in my opinion.
Gilbert's ethos is pretty obvious. She establishes her writing success right off the bat by talking about her best seller. Anyone that produces a work as "genius" as she did has ethos. What I liked was her humility, however. She established ethos without bragging, another successful technique.
Gilbert utilized logos quite often. Her example about her father being a chemical engineer and how no one ever really questioned him presented a very logical argument. She found ways to use logos to convince the audience that she was right.
Overall, I believe that Gilbert's thesis is that we need to believe in our "disembodied genius." This will help us not only achieve success, but accept failure. She urges everyone to work their hardest, and not to be afraid of looking for help from a higher power. This argument seems crazy until she uses logos again to bring the Greeks and Romans into it. By dragging these historical powerhouses into her argument, she becomes more believable.
I greatly enjoyed Gilbert's speech and found it rather inspiring. Her idea, while odd, was more logical then I ever thought possible. She really sold it to me. Now, when my creative juices dry up, you can believe I will be talking to the genius lurking in the corner...
"It felt as if she was talking to me, teaching me a life lesson."
-Molly Gondolf
Mol, I agree completely. I too felt like she was standing in the room, talking to just me. What a sweet woman.
Oh goodie. I am not alone. I too found this speech to be confusing. She kept moving from topic to topic and it did not seem to flow well together. I liked the hand movements. They caught my eye when I started to drift off into my wonderful fantasy land. As Ms. Raff says, “A sixteen year old has a sixteen minute attention span.” This, my friend was NINETEEN MINUTES! If I were three years older then maybe I would have listened to the whole thing. Nah I still would not have. Some parts of the stories were interesting. I just did not believe that they were that relevant with the topic. I believe that she was trying to say that we all need to put our creative side out there. We can not curl up in our hole and just be afraid of the world. We all have our genius in us and even if we fail well it is the thought that counts. It is better to fail a thousand times then never do anything at all. What hooked the audience in was when she started talking about her personal antedotes. She is a best selling author which was established in the opening lines of her speech so that is the ethos. As for pathos, she used humor in the form of her examples. She also appealed to the audience with questions and her word choice. Lastly, she uses historical facts and stories for example when she talks about Socrates which appeals to logos. Her idea was cool if what I said was her thesis was correct. We do need to step out our shell to reach our full potentials as geniuses.
Jen P.
I agreed with a lot of what you said. I was confused too. She could have gotten my attention if her speech was shorter and a little more relatable i guess. Good job. lol.
Jen P. (cont)
But I did like the hand gestures. lol. They woke me up and realed me into the speech because if she were just standing there I would have falled asleep.
Okaydokays Bye!
I believe the thesis of Elizabeth Gilbert’s speech was that “it is okay if you’re creative genius doesn’t show up sometimes, just keep doing what you love.” First, I have to start of saying that I found her so entertaining to watch and listen to. She knew exactly the right time to be funny and the right time to be serious. I remember thinking “wow, this lady has spunk.” And that’s why I think she was so effective in conveying her thesis. At first glance, it seems as if she’s jumping around from one story and idea to the next, but in reality, everything ties together. And she makes that clear at the very end of her speech.
Gilbert had many hooks throughout her talk. The most effective hooks were the personal stories that she told. She spoke about the different people that she knew such as her father, the poet Ruth Stone, and the musician Tom Waits. Her encounter with Ruth Stone was probably the crowd-catcher for me. I loved her description of Stone being chased by a poem through the fields. And how Stone was struck by this massive and powerful poem and how she had to get it down on paper before she loses it. And with the bits of humor in her stories, she did a great job in capturing the audience’s attention.
It is apparent that Gilbert established her ethos by stating that she is a writer. She’s the author of the best-selling novel Eat, Pray, and Love. However, I felt that she also established her ethos when she spoke about history. It seemed that she knew a lot in this area. I think Gilbert established her pathos through her humor. She told a lot of stories that were really relatable. She also spoke in a casual diction that made the audience feel at ease. Lastly, her logos refer back to her knowledge on ancient history. She spoke about Ancient Rome and Greece in which she elaborated further on the cultures and beliefs that they had back then. I found it really interesting when she spoke about the “Damons” in Greece and how people believed that these spirits bestowed creativity amongst people. She later speaks about African tribes and their dances. She knew a lot of information. This provided significant evidence and arguments to prove her thesis.
I actually liked the ideas that Gilbert presented a lot. It’s a very nice thought to believe that a spiritual being helps guide you through your creative masterpieces. I’ve always liked the idea of personal muses who inspire you and Gilbert’s idea reminded me of this. And she made such a valid point at the end stating that even if you’re creative genius is not around, you should continue doing what you do because that is respectable.
“Olay. Olay.”
Hayley- “She kicks butt at public speaking, and some of you seem to be bothered by her hand gestures…I frankly didn’t even mind them. They seemed natural to me. She looked extremely comfortable, like it was just her and I having an everyday conversation, and most of us use our hands to portray our ideas.”
I completely agree. She really did kick butt haha. But you’re right she felt very at ease and the way she spoke seemed very conversational to me as well. I was really captivated in the things she had to say.
I have yet to fine a clearly definable thesis to this speech. Gilbert presented such a wide array of ideas and topics so equally weighted that there was not a single one that stood out above the rest. As a collaborative work though I can say that the thesis was in the area of, do not let the expectations and opinions of other guide what you do and love. Perform to the best of your ability without and second guesses and your genius will surely come to you. This seemed to be the central idea the speech honed in on with the last few lines of the speech. No matter who hears this speech they will find common ground on that thought. Every person has inhibitions and worries but the message at the end was undeniable and everyone who heard the speech can relate to it.
The speech itself turned me off from the beginning. Although I found the ideas she presented to be on the verge of brilliance I did not feel connected to her speech and presentation. As far as I’m concerned she had no physical “hook”. The things that grab hold of me the most in a speech are either controversial topics or intense enthusiasm and liveliness in a presentation. While her topic did become very intriguing as she progresses her presentation As far as I could tell was subpar. That just reflects on my personality, I’ve never been turned on by drab “stoner humor” which Gilbert seemed to be fond of with her sluggish executions of jokes. Other people may find that to be clever or witty but I see the person as someone completely uninterested in what they are saying.
Her execution of ideas though was flawless at worst. It was perfectly organized starting with an easy to relate to historical concept and then progressing into current day situations. She spoon the audience her ideas but not in a way that condoned their intelligence. She used creative ideas that were intricate and yet easy to grasp. Through this she established her logos. Her ideas were organized and her facts acute, she had a calm and steady progression that did not jump from topic to topic.
Her ethos on the other hand was established much earlier on. She began with a casual summary of her credentials and experience as an author. This lets the audience know they are dealing with a professional. She constantly added onto the ethos in her presentation by giving facts whether they were from ancient history or current events. The wonderful thing about her presentation was that she did not put herself up on a pedestal when recounting the success of her book. Yes, she did give herself credibility but she did so while still appearing real to the audience. She gave out personal details and feelings that made her seem vulnerable just like any other person.
Through her “I’m a real boy” presentation she also establishes pathos. When she gives out these feeling of frustration, joy and fear that she has had she becomes humanized to the audience. They can find common ground in the emotions that we have all shared. Her speech as a whole is very emotional. Even if she was speaking of the emotions of past literary masterminds she always presented the emotional aspect of being a writer which I feel resonates deeply with audiences. They want to be reminded that the person speaking to them is only human. Gilbert recognizes this fact and delivers well above the expectations of the audience.
Now the fun part, what do I think of her ideas. As soon as she presented the idea for separate entities of a person and their genius I fell in love with the woman. If only we had that type of mindset today! Think of the pressures that would be lifted from society. No longer would I have to worry day in and day out about my performances whether academic or athletic. If I bomb a test you better take it up with my genius, if I lose race blame a god. Good stuff man, good stuff. But after the effects of my freedom induced high wore off I thought of the ides to be more impractical then anything. What kind of world would we be living in if we could blame our failures on an outside force? The key idea here is that they are “our’ failures, we are the creators of these flaws, not some demigod. As much as I would like to blame Mo (my genius) for screwing me over on yesterday’s calc test I can’t do that. These gods of Genius were for a time when people sacrificed lambs to ensure a good rain season, when people fought wars to please a god hey met in a dream. It is not an idea for this time period and as far as I am concerned it never should be.
In response to Leonor.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who was getting annoyed at the speech’s length. in actuality it seems ridiculous that I can’t hold my attention on something for 19 minutes, but I’m immature….so yeah…those 19 minutes might as well be 19 years. But it was great because my dad walked by and said “that hag is still yappin” in his fat old guy voice. Anyway this section is not about my experience, it’s about Leonor’s. So anyway I also like the hand gestures. It reminds me of a very Italian way of speaking and it just feels right for every speech to have hand movements emphasis the points that are made.
time for high school musical!
Tommi Lynn, my little sister, desperately wants more than anything to become an artist when she gets older. Unfortunately, for Tommi, her success may very well be limited due to the way in which creativity is judged in this society. Elizabeth Gilbert was right in saying that because we refer to people as being a genius and not having a genius, hundreds of artists (including other creative thinkers) have been killed off for the past two hundreds years. Knowing this, I believe Ms. Gilbert’s thesis was that’s its better for people to view genius as something that comes to you, not something that you can be characterized by. My overall impression of Elizabeth Gilbert’s TED talk is that it was much more of a talk than a speech. Despite the fact that it was well thought out and she made a lot of good points, it did not match up with the way I picture a speech. Perhaps I am wrong and the truth is that my definition of a speech is flawed. It just so happens that I’ve always thought of a speech as being formal, professional, and to-the-point. Despite these thoughts, I thought that her talk was very well planned out, included many good examples, and was very relatable. Going back to her thesis, she delivered it by comparing today’s view of artistry with the ancient Greek/Roman view. By making this comparison, she was able to give an example of a society that believes creativity comes from the human being, while also giving an example of a different society that believes creativity comes to a person. To strengthen her thesis, she gave an example of the pressure that is now on her to write another good book, and showed how many other artists feel this same pressure, yet, deal with it in different ways. She even described the pressure as promoting the need to establish a “protective psychological construct” (keeping a safe distance between her and the reaction to her writing). The examples she provided while also including some sarcasm to keep the audience’s attention were very effective in making her thesis even stronger.
As far as critiquing is concerned, I believe that the moment she came up on the stage, she set a very comfortable atmosphere for her audience. The way she began her talk, the tone of her voice, and even the clothes she was wearing established a relaxed and personal atmosphere that correlated well with her talk. Her sarcasm was also well established, and was included at the appropriate moments. Overall, I loved both her introduction and conclusion. Her conclusion was a good summary of the points she had made throughout her talk, which ended up serving as very inspirational points as well. I also appreciated the fact that she included her own opinions on some of the things she touched upon. For instance, in the beginning, she said that now it seems as if “artistry in the end will lead to anguish”. After asking her audience if they were “All cool with that”, she then said that she believes it is an “odious” perception. It adds credibility while providing insight to her personality. At first, it seemed to me that this was just an excuse for her to use if her second book is not as successful. Yet, after listening to her more closely and understanding the bigger message she was providing to her audience, her thesis prevailed over this ‘excuse’. On the other hand, I was left wishing she could have established what she thought the difference between creativity and genius was, or rather, if she believed there was a difference at all. This was not one of her major points though, so the talk was still satisfying without it.
Did she have a hook? Well, technically, I would consider the analogy/comparison to ancient Greek/Roman culture as being her hook. After all, her thesis could not have been established without it, and she uses it throughout the second half of her speech. Yet, she did not necessarily have a particular phrase that was repeated throughout the talk, which can sometimes serve as a hook (something they can always relate back to). For instance, just as an example, the hook in Lindsey’s speech today was chocolate. It was something very simple, yet, something that she could relate all of her points with.
To deliver her ideas, Elizabeth Gilbert includes many personal examples and sarcasm. For instance, she alluded to her Dad, who is a chemical engineer, to show that for whatever reason, creative people seem to have a reputation of being mentally unstable. People like her Dad are never asked if they feel they will be “doomed” like she is (this is where the sarcasm comes it). The reason why she included this idea however was to show the unnecessary pressure creative people carry with them. Many of her other ideas are represented through people she has met. She mentions people like Norman Mailor, Ruth Stone, Tom Wades, and Lenard Collin. All of these people are used to explain that strange sense of creativity that comes to artists from an unknown source. Also, by introducing herself in the beginning, she establishes herself as one of these artists. After establishing herself, she is then able to relate to these other people.
Furthermore, ethos was established the moment she claimed that writing was not only her profession, but her “great lifelong love and fascination”. She establishes herself as the kind of person who loves her job with a passion. Plus, she also relates very well to her audience by using informal phrases like “Are you guys all cool with that?” She even assures her audience that her reference to ancient Greek/Roman culture relates to what she is trying to say. The reference was then very easy to follow. She often spoke in second person quite often as well. Ms. Gilbert was also able to appeal to poets, musicians, lawyers, dancers, religious people, and average people who just get up and go to work every day through the people she references. She even laughed at her own jokes; a sign of a likeable personality.
Pathos was seen when she began to mention how our societal view of genius/creativity “has been killing off artists for the past two hundred years”. Some of the questions she poses also contain pathos, such as “Why? Is it rational? Is it logical? Should people be afraid of the work they feel they were put on this earth to do?” and “Why not think about it this way?”. She also puts a lot of emotion in before she introduces people like Ruth Stone and Tom Wades (she expresses her love and admiration for them). Toward the end, she even mentioned that once, she found herself in one of those “pits of despair” you can sometimes find yourself in when you write or have a missing thought that almost led her to give up on her book.
Logos was introduced mostly when she talked about her “protective psychological construct” and the culture of ancient Greece/Rome. She explains that ancient artists were protected from narcissism, and “genius was a kind of lame”. She also establishes ethos once she goes into the time of the Renaissance. The people she refers to also serve as logos. Overall, her logos lies in the fact that she has just come out with a top-selling book that people all over the country are praising.
Looking back at her ideas, the place where I could connect with her most was when she mentioned Ruth Stone. I have never heard of this woman before, but her idea of a thought almost escaping her but catching it before it could be given to someone else was very understandable to me. I completely understood what she meant when she said that ideas sometimes come to you at unexpected times from an unknown source. I could also connect very well with Tom Wades. Often, I have a thought to write about, but I have no pen or paper to write it down on. The frustration which results creates a huge desire to want to dominate the uncontrollable creative impulses. I also agree with the fact that our society should look at genius as something that comes to you, not something that you can be called. Keeping a safe distance between you and the responses to your writing are also essential, as she described in her “protective psychological construct”. I was amazed overall at how well Elizabeth Gilbert was able to relay such complex thoughts to her audience in such an easy-to-follow way. Her words serve as true inspiration to all people.
In response to Devon P:
Okay, so I went on Amazon.com and read the first page of the book. Personally, I can’t stand it because it is way too similar to the plot of Under The Tuscan Sun; nothing can take the place of that. Also, I’m going to have to figure out what “celibacy”, a “Tandem Exchange Partner”, and “innuendo” mean. Anyway, I agree with that Ms. Gilbert seemed to relay her thoughts effortlessly which is definitely something admirable. She also laughed at her own jokes, like you mentioned, which says a lot about her personality, and established a good atmosphere. Yet, I have to say, that in a way, although she may not have been bragging, her talk almost seemed as if it was an excuse just in case her next book turns out to be not as good.
“Overall, I believe that Gilbert's thesis is that we need to believe in our ‘disembodied genius.’ This will help us not only achieve success, but accept failure.” I could not have said it better myself. This was a major point that she brought up in her talk. Yet, it was slightly disappointing that she left it all the way at the end of her talk.
At once I feel a kinship with her because of her hand movements; whenever I’m speaking I love to use my hands. I actually feel as if I have no control over using my hands, but it just happens thus I loved her use of hand gestures for the pure reason that I could relate and was amused by them.
Her thesis to me is that it is ok to be creative, that genius isn’t everything you should still show up despite adversity. I thought she was very effective in giving her speech, because I never checked out. Right before she would get too out of it she would bring herself back in with humor, or something to spark my attention. Her humbleness seemed so genuine that I wanted to listen to her.
She hooked me in with her sense of humor, but also her credibility. Because she has a bestselling novel, one that is enjoyed all over the country I felt like she knew what she was talking about and could be passionate about it because it was near to her heart. Thus, she hooked me by making this seem like a legitimate argument from a creative mind.
She delivered her ideas with humor and she tried to appeal to everyone. She tried to use examples and facts mixed with humor and emotion. Her overall presentation was filled with notions that we could accept, and the ones that we find hard she broke into all three segments of logos, pathos, and ethos. The fact that everyone has a genius and isn’t a genius themselves is a really hard concept to grasp if you are not artsy because it goes back to almost relying on fairies as she joked.
When she talked about her book and how it magically became this best seller she established her ethos. Having a bestselling book puts you in the artsy category in my head, because books don’t just write themselves to be amazing someone, and their muse of course, come up with it. People don’t buy books that they aren’t going to read so if it’s a bestseller she must know what she is talking about when she gives the example of what are you going to do next.
Her pathos came across to me with her humor and her ability to feel so honest. For example when she was talking about ending up with nothing but broken dreams, she became a person just like you or me with hopes and goals that were just in reach but hadn’t happened yet. She became the struggling AP kid that everyone thinks is doomed to fail but is trying to do better.
Her logos weren’t her strongest aspect, but I think it is because that isn’t the way her mind works. I think she processes more with pathos than she does with logos. She did use great logic based answers like the staggering death rates, that appeals to both the logistics that it never was this bad and the emotional man this is bad. Also her thoughts of Ancient Rome and Greece made her logos more complete.
I feel in love with this speech. It does seem like a huge burden on society to have to always be a genius. It seems much more manageable to have a genius that can help you take part of the fall. I think I loved this so much because of my glass half full mentality, I like to see the world almost naively, and the idea that muses guide geniuses is a very glass half full, let’s lessen the pressure of the world mentality. I am not exactly the artsy type, nor do I create works of art but I understand the pressure of being a genius and how much saner the world would be if not everyone had to be geniuses all the time.
Plus, once again anyone who moves their hands while talking like that makes me feel so much more comfortable.
Ashley-
First of all your little sister Tommi Lynn is the most adorable thing ever, or at least was the last time i saw her.
Also, i agreed with you completely that she made the audience really comfortable. I liked how you mentioned when she asked the audience "are you cool with that?" because she became very personable to me at the point in time. Her use of sarcasem and rhetoric questions was really good. I understand where the whole formal v. informal speech comes into play and i liked how you called it "a talk", but even in being comfortable i thought her points and how she addressed it kept it like a speech. Your blog was great as usual.
Hayley-
I took your advice and attempted to watch it a second time. That didn't go too well, so I had to watch it a third time. It started making more sense once I listened more carefully, but that's still one of my major criticisms. I feel if some one's a good speaker, people shouldn't have to listen to their speech over and over again to get the point. But I do think I may have been a bit harsh in my critique, I'll take back the unorganized part and after listening closely, her stories began to make more sense to me. But her hand gestures are still irritating.
Like Morgan, I listened to Gilbert’s speech twice, however, only once did I watch it, the other time I just listened with the window minimized. Oddly enough, the two experiences seemed worlds apart, but nonetheless, I got the same messages from it both times. As for her thesis, I am still a little shaky, but if I had to, and I do, venture my best guess it would be that being able to separate the pressure of having “genius” and making “genius” an outside entity is the best way to remove the pressure and fear that comes from creativity (writing, art, music, etc…) She delivered her thesis in the form of stories and facts. She “recited” how the ancient Greeks and Romans believed in this mysterious enigma that lent the writer its gifts. She then went on to explain how this has happened to people she knows and occasionally to her and the positive effects it has on her and others. I thought it was very effective and made her presentation much more interesting. The stories and facts helped to boost her pathos, logos, and ethos as well.
However there are a few things that I found rather distracting. One is her use of “um”. It bothered me so much I wound up counting how many times she used it: 43. Ok, so I know I use “um” when I talk but since I was in fifth grade I have been constantly told don’t use “um”. So, since I have been conditionally trained to pinpoint the word “um”, it bugged to heck out of me every time she used it, like how some people found it annoying all of the hand motions she used, which I found relaxing and helped to creative and calm atmosphere. Overall though, her use of the word “um” barely damaged my opinion of her, it just merely caused some distraction. I also must admit that in the beginning of the speech I was a little bored. It annoyed that she called her success “freakish”, which, to me, sounds like she had no confidence in her work. Of course, it could just be a tactic to not sound pompous or arrogant, but to me it was not very appealing. The only other criticism is that the speech seemed to drag in the beginning. I am not exactly sure why but it seemed to droned on but after the five-minute marker it picked up and I was hooked until the end.
Her hook, to me, was when she began questioning the audience about the possibility of this “magical, divine spirit”. It drew my attention and held it throughout the rest of the speech. As I mentioned previously, her ideas came in the form of anecdotes, facts, and jokes. She switched between all three seamlessly and varied them in order to keep the speech lively and interesting. It definitely helped me. Now on to the amazing non-mathematical comprised of ethos, pathos, and logos.
Ethos was established pretty much at the beginning of the speech. Her reputation as an author with Eat, Love, Pray gave her mass credibility to begin with. She furthered that with her knowledge about the Greeks and Romans. Pathos appeal was everywhere. Her use of jokes, the allusion to Harry Potter, recounting of stories, and words that had emotional power behind them all helped to boost Gilbert’s appeal to pathos. Logos appeal came from her detailed explanations of how the notion of having a genius is better than, and much less stressful than, being a genius. She followed a clear line of thought and explained her thought well. She was straightforward about it and didn’t seem to insert her opinion in certain parts, which helped to appeal to logical. She basically said, and I’m paraphrasing, If we are creative people and we all are in some form or another then if we believe in this concept of having a genius on loan our lives will be less stressful and much more enjoyable. Sounds to me like a scientific hypothesis, which is very, and by very I mean completely, logic based. She appealed top all three areas very well.
I found myself agreeing with her about the benefits of having a genius. It would make life so much easier especially if I didn’t do well on a test or something, the excuse would be, my genius was on vacation that day, I showed up but it didn’t. Oh, how life would be so less stressful. But I also like how she referenced the Greeks and Romans and explained that this isn’t a new idea. Overall, I like her speech and found it both funny and educational.
Myra:
Congrats on posting your blog solo. Is this something I should be expecting more often? :)
Sara VP:
“While listening to Elizabeth Gilbert speak, I felt an immediate sense of comfort. Her voice was soft and relaxing, so I was concerned with the possibility of losing concentration and dozing off. But as she finished introducing herself and went on to talk about writing, she seemed to be really connected with what she does, so I began to listen more closely. Even as she proceeded, I noticed bit of her true personality showing. The subtle hints of humor kept my attention while also loosening up the audience.”
I understand exactly what you mean. I felt the same exact way. It did drag in the beginning but it got like a million times better after that.
Erik:
I really like your interpretation of her thesis. It wasn’t something I think I would have ever come up with but after reading it, it made perfect sense and I like it better than my own guess.
To danny: That argument in your response is actually pretty darned amazing. That's a good rebuttal to the speech. If someone is responsible for creating something, they're responsible for creating something. An easy exit was found in the speech, and easy usually isn't best.
Dobby!
<.<
>.>
Ahem. On to the blog. After watching the spech and analyzing it as closely as I can, it didn't at first seem like she had a single thesis. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that the thesis of the speech is that it is best to look upon creativity as something that comes to you, rather than something inside of you already. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by 'hook' in this situation. What hooked me in was the interesting way she related greek and roman culture to our own.
Her delivery of ideas was excellent. Though I found the topic itself a bit boring, her intermittent use of fun related facts and references, as well as a sprinkling of humour, kept my attention. She proceeded with her ideas slowly and efficiently, going over each one thoroughly, then moving onto the next one in chronological order.
She establishes ethos throughout almost any time she opens her mouth to talk about herself, and some times when she's not talking about herself. She's a passionate bestselling author knowledgeable about ancient culture who has picked the brain of a legendary musician. That alone is pretty hard to top.
Pathos, similarly, is found within the entire speech. The speech is filled with emotional ups and downs from funny little anecdotes to the depressing bit about the alcoholic authors. Of course, while all her background information appealed to ethos and pathos, her argument itself had a foot planted firmly in logos. It seemed to amount to "If creative people stop thinking that their greatest work is their own doing, then they will be freed from the stress they suffer."
While I understand and have some respect for her ideas, her solution of believing that we are not responsible for our own work simply does not seem practical to me. Perhaps some more spiritual or superstitious people may be able to find solace in the thought that they did not create their own work, I expect most will simply dismiss the idea as silly and go about their worried ways.
I would say that the main thesis in Elizabeth Gilbert’s speech was; if writers can look at their ‘creative genius’ in a way that doesn’t put the blame for success and failure solely on themselves but rather on the gift of ideas from a somewhat spiritual ‘genius’ that comes and goes as it feels necessary, then writers will be able to mentally survive in their world and not become lost in the struggle of finding that brilliant idea.
In the beginning I wasn’t quite sure of her message because like she said, she described her idea sort of full circle by beginning with her life and the ancient Greek and Roman beliefs and then discussing the specific anecdotes that related to her thesis. Still, I felt her purpose was clear by the end of her speech.
I am obviously not a very good speaker because I don’t have a good stage presence (jokes), so I’m not to judge, but I thought that there were both good and bad parts of her visual. She moved around the stage and made great eye contact with what looked like the entire room. He voice although might have been to quiet for some, can also have the effect of making the audience feel at ease and relaxed with her presence. Also, she seemed like a very likable person, which added to her credibility of the speech.
I assume, that she was speaking to mostly a room of writers so her appeal to them worked well. Her ethos was very affective. First, she was a well-known writer who recently came out with a best seller so people believed that she knew how to write and knew what she was talking about. Also because she’s a writer, they accepted her alternate way of thinking about creative genius. She was confident and assure of herself which made even non-writers find credibility in what she was speaking.
Her pathos was somewhat affective. She appealed to the audience’s sense of wonder and imagination more than their sympathetic emotions. This she did well because she offered stories which you could choose to believe or not. For me, I am a fairly logical person, so I didn’t necessarily believe in her hypothesis that genius is a spiritual thing, as great as it may sound. I still believe that Gilbert had a hook, which was the anecdotes she gave about the man, the old women poet and herself. These seemed like honest stories that perfectly exemplified her thesis. However, I feel that the only problem for younger writers is that they most likely haven’t experienced this spiritual genius so they had a difficult time relating.
Her logos was not effective on myself but it could have been different for many people. I wasn’t easily persuaded however for writers or other people who believe in spirits that can alter our journey in life, they might have caught on very easily to the thesis and agreed. Since she was speaking about a very imaginative and ‘creative’ way of thinking, it was hard to appeal to logic in some cases. However, I thought overall her way of approaching the topic and he use of anecdotes and ancient history was affective.
The idea she had that genius is actually a thing the comes and goes and is not something that people actually are, was a very different way of thinking that I’d never heard before. I was interested to her argument but in the end, I wasn’t convinced. I’ve always had the feeling that success, intelligence and talent come hand and hand with simply being born extraordinary and with hard work. I’ve seen many intelligent people who could care less about homework and school and I’ve seen other people who are so smart because they have worked hard all their life to get where they are. I don’t think genius is something that can be available to everyone; it’s just something that you become. Still, things like fate, destiny, and spirits I really don’t believe until I experience so, until I do, I am stuck with my logical ideas about life.
Matt C:
"Her execution of ideas though was flawless at worst. It was perfectly organized starting with an easy to relate to historical concept and then progressing into current day situations. She spoon the audience her ideas but not in a way that condoned their intelligence. She used creative ideas that were intricate and yet easy to grasp. Through this she established her logos. Her ideas were organized and her facts acute, she had a calm and steady progression that did not jump from topic to topic."
-I agree that although like you I didn't necessarily catch on with her ideas, her organization and stucture of the speech was 'flawless'. She knew where she was going with every fact and story and how to get to her final conclusion. Everything had a point that led to her next.
Dev:
"The first thing I noticed while listening to Gilbert was her humor. Anyone that can make fun of themselves with a genuine smile on their face deserves a thumb up in my book. In addition her allusion to Harry Potter by mentioning Dobby (also Carly's pet on pet society!), helped to appeal to the audience's pathos. She tapped in to emotions by making everyone laugh. That's a great technique in my opinion."
-I too enjoyed her adorable humor and way she used sarcasm to laugh at herself, common technique. Oh and I loved the Dobby reference...which reminds me that I haven't fed him in about a month:/ whoooops
Alice:
"It seemed clear as day that she is saying that creative people today have a negative connotation to them, that with this gift of creativity comes anguish which she believes stems from the fact that we now believe that creativity comes from ourselves."
-I agree with you and Gilbert, that it is unfortunate that creative writers and other artists have such a negative connotation as being mentally unstable. I think that the pressure deffinetly builds up, but it is like this no matter what you pursue. I believe that there are perfectly happy writers out there that still encoutner great success.
Dear Sarah C:
I hate you. I didn't know Dobby died, n u ruined it.
With luv,
ME
Gilbert has proven that not only is her writing ability is superb, but her speaking ability as well. The issue at hand she talks about makes sense, since I have kind of looked into it, and her first rate delivery and analysis is great. Though I have never actually read her work, I heard she was good and this proves it.
I believe her main thesis brought a few points: That everyone has with them a genius and that people shouldn't see art/artist as this notion for sadness to occur. She kind of points at the fact that everyone has their own creativity in their own way. She of course uses the arts of Literature for her reference points. She also pokes at the fact that artist aren't just sad over there work because it's depressing, it's because of the weight the bear within themselves, as many creators do. She delivered this speech in a very soothing way. She seemed like she may be trying to create a relaxation; the same she references with the “outside genius” idea of taking pressure of artist. I think by taking on this calm bearing, yet her very uplifting speaking tone, was a proficient way to carry the speech. She was overall a delight to the audience, cracking jokes now and then to lighten some deep moods. It is in my amateur opinion that she did very well.
I think her first hook, as I believe with multiple ideas behind the speech there is multiple hooks, was talking about herself as an author. This really gave the audience an idea that she knew about what she was talking about. This helped to define the ethos of the speech, using herself as a logical source(since she is a best selling author). The principal of creativity in/with everyone helped develop a sort of logos. I think her best hook was the idea of the Romans and Greeks. This little reference to history sort of set in stone her idea of an outside genius, considering these cultures established that principal. By telling this story she also develops pathos, using history for “proper” reference. Pathos is also present when she talks about the poet and the music guy(the names skip my mind).
When it comes down to the ideas., I think they were brilliant. I have been thinking a lot about the sadness of genius from reading this news article about a certain musician, and this helped me understand more on the whole concept of genius and their emotional bearings. I personally like it a lot, but that's just me.
The thesis of her speech seems to be the fact that “genius” shouldn’t be forced. Through depending on magic pixies to bring genius, ideas that flow through your head will become clearer. By having something to push the worry of success or failure aside, it is easy to collect those moments of genius once they appear. That is, assuming they do appear again. When genius chooses not to provide another brilliant idea, it is easy to simply move on, and become something else, like a chemical engineer!
Her hook is obvious. You can easily see her bouts of humor…insanity, starting with “people treat me like I’m doomed.” It is especially notable when she makes serious points, yet proceeds to say it in a crazed way. Doing this, she is able to make the audience question what her opinion on the matter truly is. As she continues on her craze, the audience slowly learns this through random chunks of data, making it quite a bit more engaging.
She establishes ethos through both the fact that she’s in the field of those who are seen as genius by being a writer. It automatically makes the audience think she knows what she’s talking about. In addition, she seems to show off a good historical knowledge, which is always impressive. Her pathos, though a bit offset by humor, is shown when she mentions the failure, suicide, or simple loss of creativity of writers. It makes the audience realize the harshness of such a path. The logos is the most impressive part, not due to how backed up it is, but by the very fact that she made a completely illogical idea, (somewhat) logical. She is able to explain how relying on some random daemon would be able to relieve all the worries of living up to previous successes.
I am unsure whether I think she’s, well, genius, or just complete nutcase. And since I can’t decide, it’s likely both. Her idea makes sense, but at the same time, there’s no point for those who do not worry too much about replicating success, either due to confidence, joy in doing their job, or simply because they have already replicated that success. Or if you’re Stephen King, be so curious about the concept of being lucky to the point of having an alias just to see if books would sell under another name.
Though I do talk to, i.e. smack my head against, my wall, I don’t find it any more useful than taking a videogame break (Well, it’s really taking returning to videogames from a work break), seeing an interesting concept, and making it something that I find more interesting, and at times, less cliché. Then again, what do I know? I haven’t written a multi-million selling book.
Sara VP
While listening to Elizabeth Gilbert speak, I felt an immediate sense of comfort. Her voice was soft and relaxing, so I was concerned with the possibility of losing concentration and dozing off.
Ahh....I'd have to agree to this after thinking about it. Her voice was quite comforting, and it's probably the reason I was unsure if she was a really good speaker or just a bit insane. I still think both though.
Dan P
Please don't mind as I put on my monocle and top hat, as I emulate a British accent:
The idea is simply brilliant, my dear chap!
Monocle off.
I have mixed feelings about this speech. One part of me wants to agree with her, and to apply her ideas to my life. The other part of me, however, leads me to believe that thinking that creativity is some outside force rather than our own prerogative is just a way to avoid taking responsibility for our failures (or successes). Regardless of how I felt about the speech, it was clear that Ms. Gilbert was extremely passionate about the topic at hand. She seemed geniuninely interested and passionate about every word that came out of her mouth. It wasn't long or drawn out like other speeches, and she didn't assume that monotone and dronish tone of voice that many speakers have when they aren't really gung-ho about their topic. Because of this, I thought that she was extremely effective in the delivery of her point. I can't remember her exact words, but there was a point in the speech where she was like "Everyone has tried to make something..." and then went on to make her point. By including the audience in what she was talking about, she was establishing pathos because they were now able to relate to what she was saying. As for logos, the whole spiel on the ancient Greeks and the muses and daemons and geniuses created that. She presented a logical argument by referencing history in order to further her point. This also helped to establish ethos, because her logic (as well as other examples pertaining to other famous artists) made her credible.
Jen: First of all, I love you. Your hair looked amazing today. :)
Second of all: Don't hate on the hand motions. She's probably Italian. I for one can vouch for her, because as an Italian myself, I use my hands in conversation... a lot. Just ask anyone in my period about my "walking down the street" reinactment.
I believe Gilbert’s thesis and main point was that the status of genius should not be given to people because it is entirely too hard to constantly live up to. Instead, people should only be given credit for some of their success when it comes. This is the one point I have to disagree on. I don’t see how we can give credit to a little voice that lives in the sky or talks to us when we are driving. She was right when she said that many people would not be able to go along with this idea, and I am definitely one of them. I do however believe she is a very good speaker and was intrigued enough to want to read her book that gave her so much success. This book definitely gave her the credibility needed to pull off such a strange speech. Also, her knowledge of history’s pastime with “geniuses” gave her credibility. I especially liked the “Ole!” origin and was interested to find out where it really came from.
“Don’t be afraid. Don’t be daunted. Just do your job. Continue to show up for your piece of it.” Although this came at the end of the speech, I think that this is what Gilbert was trying to tell the audience to do. This is also when I finally realized for sure the meaning of her speech (I still don’t know if that’s entirely right). She spoke about a variety of subjects that all connected in a very odd way, so it was hard for me to grasp at some points. In the beginning, I was very worried that this would be a boring speech that I would need to suffer through. Although I didn’t agree on or grasp all of what she talked about, I was able to keep attention to her because of her bits of humor that she slyly added along the way.
Gilbert’s appeal to emotion was a bit more subtle. She didn’t make the audience sympathize with creative geniuses like I kept expecting her to do. Instead, she used humor as her hook (at least that’s what kept me listening), and that was the only emotion I really was able to feel, but that’s just me.
Overall, I think her ideas were something that only a creative genius could come up with. I never would have thought of trying to instill the idea that magic fairy muses help us along with our work in this day and age. I give her credit for throwing such an.. interesting idea out to the world. I don’t know how much success she will have with this idea for change, but I hope for the best because I certainly do not wish for the suicidal/manic/alcoholic label to stay with all creative geniuses of our time.
"Phrases like “which has caused me to have to sort of recalibrate my whole relationship with this work” and “a scrap heap of broken dreams with your mouth filled with bitter ash of failure” speak highly of her intellect, and her mannerisms while talking also decidedly signify she is a writer, as she relies more heavily on the words to make a point or get a laugh than she does her body or face."
Fiona,
I agree with you, and I think that the best lines in her speech occured when she was speaking like a great writer. It made me glad to see that she didn't try to dumb herself down for the audiance members that may not be authors themselves. The line with the "bitter ash" was one that sticks out in my mind. She also wasn't very showy with her body, as you said, which made me like her even more even though I was a little fuzzy on the topic for a while.
Well, I won’t lie, I tried to listen to this about three times, but I could not focus. The fourth time however, just seemed to click. Thus, I am concluding that spider solitaire is the way to keep your attention while focusing on the big picture. (The previous three times were being overanalyzed sentence for sentence.) Nonetheless, I’m glad I did not give up on the third time because I ended up really enjoying the speech.
At first, I thought that the speech was boring, and would bring no interest to me. However, she used a really good technique that drew in any type of audience. She talked about people, normal people, who have ever tried to make something. That, and the little history lesson about the Greeks really drew my attention because I’m really into Greek mythology and culture. I thought she was going to call those inspiring spirits “Muses” though. Oh well.
Anyways, I thought her speech was very well thought out and had a good flow to it, skipping easily from idea to idea. I think her thesis was that people should try to think in the mindset that those who we claim to be geniuses should be criticized less severely, for maybe there may be mystical phenomena helping them become inspired. (I want a Dobby fairy princess!!!! =]) Her delivery method was effective, and kept me attentive when I actually concentrated on listening. Some of her jokes, however, were NOT effective. The crowd did not laugh nor did I. Sometimes I found myself thinking, “Was that supposed to be...humorous?” I like how she added in that little history lesson, and tied her whole speech together with it, when it had previously been just fragments of ideas. I would think that her hook was when she said something like, “Now those of you who have ever made something, which is basically everyone...” This was the part where every person in the audience began to pay attention if they hadn’t been previously. She’s basically implying, “Hey, I’m talking to YOU.” Her ideas are delivered in a relaxed manner, filled with experiences, which increases her credibility, and subject knowledge. I like her ideas, and actually thought they could be true. Like I mentioned earlier, I’m really into Greek mythology and all their deities and mythical beings or whatnot, so I am ready to believe what she’s saying. I think it’s very possible indeed. (Plus, I want a house-elf.) She also uses humor to gain the favor of the crowd.
She also established ethos, pathos, and logos:
Ethos – She mentions God and religion and culture
Pathos – She talked about the type of depression that writers tend to get in, describing in detail
Logos – She uses historical facts to support her opinions and thoughts in a way that makes sense and seems...logical
Random blog song: Near to You by A Fine Frenzy
“Well, you and I,
It’s something different.
And I’m enjoying it cautiously.
I’m battle-scarred,
And I’m working oh-so-hard,
to get back to where I used to be...”
Good intro. I don’t think this is the best medium for this talk, though. We’re not getting the full effect of her talk. Our viewpoint is based on the whims of a video editor.
Very true about all the crazy writers.
It isn’t the creativity or foresight that kills writers. It’s the fools around them. They’re blind. They can’t see what the writer sees. And eventually, the writer goes crazy because no one gets it, and no one understands their work.
Well, I understand the daemon or the muse. You don’t actually think about it, usually. Either you’re putting down the very obvious, or the words just flow from the ambient air to the paper without stopping at the brain. You’re surprised at the quality when you read it afterwards.
Go back? Not likely. We’re too egotistical. We want the credit for it.
The poet there might have been a little batty. I don’t know. Everyone writes differently.
Ethos? Already established. I’ve heard this author praised very highly, and she knows what she’s talking about.
Pathos? Wonderful, but only for authors/artists/poets/musicians. You need to know something of the feeling to know what she means. Mind, I think everyone has felt inspiration, and can relate. The despair, the feeling of loss, the grabbing at words and thoughts and opportunities, we all know it.
Logos? This is a highly illogical topic. Art is chaotic. Any logic must be very strange indeed.
The dancer metaphor is beautiful. Again, this must apply to every art in every form.
She’s a very good speaker, overall.
Well, despite the fact that we all seemed to come up with different theses when I saw this the thesis became apparent. When I saw this speech for the first time I realized that her thesis was that we shouldn’t associate the creative thought process with depression and substance abuse. Despite the fact that most of the great minds in history have been alcoholics or drug users we shouldn’t link the two. To enhance the powerful thesis the speech was delivered nearly flawlessly. Each thought was in a logical order and enhanced the previous idea while presenting a new one. On top of her noble ideas she draws the listener in my making them feel as though they are on the same level as she is. Gilbert is very non-threatening and does not give off the sense that she is better than her audience or smarter than they are. She uses her humor to hook in the audience and uses references that attract the audience. The reference to Harry potter had almost everyone in the audience laughing and was a metaphor most could relate to. Very early in the speech she establishes ethos by informing the reader that she was the author of a bestselling book. Her pathos however was presented throughout the entire speech. She appealed to many different walks of life with many different metaphors and references. Again the most apparent and memorable reference in the speech was the Harry Potter reference. This was what appealed to the most people. Logically all of her ideas made sense which established her logos. She presents the idea that creativity is not a power held by some and wanted by many. She talks .about how creativity is like a wind that blows through when it damn well feels like it. The line in the speech that left the biggest impact was when she talked about musicians being geniuses instead of having genius. It made a lot of sense to think that creative people are not legend, they merely were affected by the winds of creativity.
Cheatham:
“When it comes down to the ideas., I think they were brilliant. I have been thinking a lot about the sadness of genius from reading this news article about a certain musician, and this helped me understand more on the whole concept of genius and their emotional bearings. I personally like it a lot, but that's just me.”
This is exactly how I felt after I finally finished watching the speech, after about an hour. Her ideas were in fact brilliant and she spoke excellently. She gave the reader a sense of what the true meaning of genius. I genuinely enjoyed this speech.
If my memory serves me correct then I believe I first encountered the book Eat, Pray, Love on Oprah. I was flipping thorough the channels and I was not in the mood for Oprah however, I thought I would give her a shot. I think that you need to be in a certain mood in order watch Oprah and in every episode the mood changes. Unfortunately, Oprah actually angered me and for some reason I just couldn’t watch. I do not think that it even had anything to with what she said; it was probably some internal anger that had absolutely nothing to do with Oprah but with life in general. Aside from my Oprah rant there is the amazing Elizabeth Gilbert.
The ethos of her speech can be recognized effortlessly. She states right off of the bat of things relating to her success in writing and her notorious book Eat, Pray, and Love. She grabs the audience with her success and they are instantly captivated. Elizabeth’s diction, mannerisms, and tone create a relatable piece. She is very aware that no matter who is in the audience that she must to relate to every single person. With references to a variety of topics such as Harry Potter, history, and even individual careers one may understand that she is desperately striving to connect. The rhetorical questions with answers that depend on your perspective and then giving her own opinion on topics is not only having the audience question themselves but learning as well. We all have our own fears in life and her humor about her own fears lightened the mood while staying on topic. She gave the audience security by stating, “We are all sort of friends here.” Her hook is,” Is it okay to accept that creativity and suffering are somehow inherently linked and that artistry in the end with ultimately always will lead to anguish?” This begins the whole topic of creative genius, anguish, and the capability to not be bitter over life’s experiences. She understands that not everyone will have the same views or opinions as her but affectively persuades them to view the creative genius in her standpoint. The thesis was to make life’s journey seem less painful and find the purpose in your creative genius to make letting go less painful. To believe that what you think makes you who you are is not what defines you but a part of your life that is miracle and was meant to pass you by.
I could relate easily to her opinion and felt connected. In certain parts her mannerisms and sarcasm made her speech. The creative process is one full of anguish, irrational thoughts, and personal struggle. Elizabeth’s logos come from personal experiences from incredible encounters in life that gave her a story to build on. A chapter in her life of genius that she did not encounter alone. She never jumps to conclusion rather she elaborates on every situation to encourage the reader to view her story the way it was meant to be viewed.
Genius never has to be full of anguish and the vital lesson to learn is that creative genius is mad but can be controlled to relieve the anguish.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT DOBBY DIES!!!!!!!!
WAY TO RUIN IT FOR ME GILBERT!!
=(((((((
........I didn't get that far in the series....haha
Well, I thought that Gilbert (haha...gilbert =)) was kind of hard to follow. I kept trying to concentrate on what she was really trying to get across, but I was distracted by how many times that they changed the camera angles and I kept looking at her flowing pants. I wasnt very sure what the theisis was, but I think that it was something like people don't posess a genius, but they have genius moments.
She kind of talked like a third grade teacher, with a calm, whispy, and relaxing voice. Her tone was always the same, whether she was making a joke about Harry Potter or talking about genius writers of the ages committing suicide. Her hand gestures are strong but still not very intimidating, and they don't really distract you unless you concentrate on them too much.
She appeals to the ethos of the audience by talking about her freakishly successful book. She just happens to mention, very casually, that her book was a bestseller. If that doesn't say that she has experience in this genre, then I don't know what was.
Gilbert establishes pathos at many points in the speech and in two different ways. She makes the lister feel sympathetic for the people in her profession by discussing the alcoholic genius writers that there have been in this world, and how they have to live knowing that their greatest success has already passed them. The other way that she establishes her pathos is when she makes subtle little jokes, that she seems to thow in there at the most boring parts of her speech, so she doesn't lose you.
Her logos suprised me, because she manages to turn the ridiculous old and odd idea of a genius being an entity, and turning it into a completely logical idea, by giving a whole background of the history of it.
At first, the thesis was a little unclear, but as the speech progressed and as Elizabeth moved through her examples the fog around her thesis lifted. I believe her thesis was that no matter what you do, or what happens in your life, all you can do is be yourself, be exactly who you are. I deduced this from her array of examples talking about a person’s “outer genius”. She talked about this phenomenon after she spoke of the pressures of being called a genius, and not being able to live up to her previous achievement, the novel “Eat, Pray, Love.” She said, when someone is called a genius, they feel like they have something to live up to, an expectation which eats away at them. The way of relieving this pressure is to displace it onto something else, an “outer genius.” When we do this, we allow ourselves to be who we really are, which in the end, is all we can do. At least that’s what I took from it.
I thought her delivery of the thesis was interesting. She never said it outright, making the reader guess what direction she’s going in for the first few minutes. As I watched the speech I wrote down four possible thesis’s, all of which were too specific. It wasn’t until the end that her message became a little clearer, and then her final statement put it away for sure. I like speeches where the message is subliminally sent through examples, because if the examples are funny or dramatic, it just makes the effect of the speech stick even more.
Her hook, however, wasn’t very good. Her attempt claming she made some discovery while writing her novel was too cliché for me, and I brushed it off. But she established her ethos well with her impressive track record as an author. She also made fun of herself a couple times, which shows she’s got good spirit, and can take a joke.
Speaking of jokes, Elizabeth Gilbert is chuck full of them, but I don’t know if I was in a bad mood when I watched it or what, but I just didn’t think she was funny. Sure it established her pathos, and I suppose it made the audience give a pity laugh or two, but trying to appeal to my emotions through awkward one-liners just didn’t cut it. I thought her humor was a detriment on her overall performance and took away from the meaning of the speech.
Her logos was established through her reasoning about geniuses. She stated that being called a genius creates pressure, and I never really thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
Overall, I liked the speech. Elizabeth Gilbert has a great message that anyone can relate to, and she portrayed it in an ingenious manner.
This really isn't the best medium. She wasn't talking to the cameras, but we need to see from the cameras' eyes.
And Sarah, I also mourn for Dobby. I have to wonder how any writing he inspired would turn out...
Britt brat =
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT DOBBY DIES!!!!!!!!
WAY TO RUIN IT FOR ME GILBERT!!
=(((((((
........I didn't get that far in the series....haha
awww that stinks!! hahahaha..well maybe you should have read it sooner smartypants!!! =] <3 ya!
JARAH! =)
Also, her knowledge of history’s pastime with “geniuses” gave her credibility. I especially liked the “Ole!” origin and was interested to find out where it really came from.
-Hahaha, when I was listening to that part of the speech, it was the one thing that clicked to me, because I immediatly about European soccer stadiums filled with fans screaming 'OLE OLE OLE OLEEEEEEEE OLEEEEEEEEEE OLEEEEEEEEEEE!' haha. All that I thought when she talked about it, I was like that is a really intereesting fact. I'm glad that I listened to this speech.
Kelly N
“It is okay if you’re creative genius doesn’t show up sometimes, just keep doing what you love.”
That is a great outlook on her speech. I thought back to when she mentioned when she was interviewing a musician and how he was driving and looked into the sky to not panic and stated, “Excuse me can you not see that I am driving do I look like I can write down a song right now?” Sometimes whether you are struggling with having your genius show up or wait for the perfect moment it is all about realizing that control is not the answer. If you let things just flow they will happen as intended.
Hmm....not much for me to say about this speech. The thesis is especially hard to pick out. From what she said, it sounds like her theisis is just do what you gotta do. Love it or hate it, just get out there and do it. Be proud of what you do even if no one else is. At least that is what I have gathered from the parts that my tiny attention span was awake for. This lady really didn't have a hook at all. I was just randomly phasing in and out of this speech. I would have to agree with Jen here and say that this whole speech just sounded like a bunch of disorganized information that this lady wanted to throw out. Her tone wasn't very enticing either. It was really bland and weak. I don't know if its shyness, nervousness, or some other symptom, but she didnt not really project her voice or put much emotion into it. Compared to the other guy that we listended to talk, she almost seemed like she didnt' care about her topic (though i'm positive that can't be true). Her ideas were all over the place, she would state something, something that I would often miss... and then go into either an explanation of it or just giving a personal example of it, often retelling her side of the story or just merely stating her opinion. I suppose that it is because of this that it was difficult to identify where her ethos, pathos, and logos all were. Logos I would have to guess would be when she started talking about that one writer dude that she has been interviewing for a project or something. That is kind of like presenting facts only instead she brings in a sort of character witness and quotes her conversation with him. I suppose the few times she made the audience laugh a bit would have to be her pathos, as that appeals to the human emotion. Though Im sure most of the crowd could not relate to what she was saying, they got a small chuckle out of it for being involved and putting themselves in her shoes. Ethos...is the hard one, I really didn't see her establishing anything that appeals to the morals of the crowd. A lot of people on this blog seem to believe that her being a best selling author (for just one book?) is what gives her the credibility with ethos, so I really have no choice but to agree with them. As someone who does not seek a career in writing and literature, I can't really say if I agree with all that she says. Though, all she says about anxiety, sociological barriers, and really insane and depressing processes that go into the minds of the writer, it definately reminds me that writing a successful book is not as easy as just getting on Microsoft Word and typing words as they come into your mind.
P.S. Didn't she say Dobbie's name wrong? and wow, I didn't know people actually loved him....he was pretty annoying, Im surprised Harry didn't throw down an Expeliarmus or whatever on him.
To Meg Song
“Some of her jokes, however, were NOT effective. The crowd did not laugh nor did I. Sometimes I found myself thinking, “Was that supposed to be...humorous?””
Yeah this lady was no Gaffigan for sure. I thought the humor ruined a lot of the speech. She made jokes at inopportune moments and it ruined the speeches flow. If I wanted to be entertained, I would watch television. Her job was to send a message, which she did do well, but the jokes were just unnecessary and as funny as Brittney in the morning on the bus.
I loved her voice. It’s extremely calming to hear. Her tone of voice wasn’t aggressive or intimidating. However I’m aware of her discussing the writing career, applying it to her life, her successes, the creative process, and the definition of geniuses, but I’m not quite sure what she wanted the audience to get from the speech. As soon as she mentioned the whole alcoholic, mental case writer reputation, two writers came to mind. Poe and King immediately entered my mind. I don’t think writers being mental cases or emotionally unstable is really a bad reputation. It helps their writing, since most people love to read abstract text. I guess I’m kind of confused on what a speech is and how it should be presented. Maybe there are different types of speeches like conversational or formal. The first speech that we watched involving classical music was very entertaining, and it wasn’t mainly just talking. He added his own talent to reinforce his thesis while being very enthusiastic. Gilbert was very laidback and she talked as if she was talking to one person exclusively. Her hand gestures and movements were amusing, but I don’t think it took away from her speech. People naturally talk with their hands. It’s just positive body language to move your hands and arms around rather than have them deadly crossed. Her hook for me seemed to be her circling around the Romans, Greeks, and the new perspective on creativity and geniuses, which added credibility. She knew what she was talking about and how it related to how she felt. Her connection to God was also intriguing. Gilbert radiated confidence when she delivered her ideas. Knowledge and the presentation of the speech established her ethos. She talked about her freakish success of a book without gloating. She connects with the audience excessively and establishes pathos when she discusses reputations of creative people and her humorous jokes. She never puts herself on a higher scale and never appears to be superior. Her logos is established during her speech when she clarifies her personal take on geniuses and creativity. She explains how the poem goes through the poet, my favorite part of the speech. It was comical, light hearted, and yet so powerful. I completely understood this part. It was basically inspiration. I loved her and her ideas. Her speech made me want to go out to Borders, which I will be going to Borders tomorrow to look for her book. Day off tomorrow! WOOPEE.
First off let me begin by saying that Gilbert’s apparel distracted me the most. Not only was it unappealing but it kept flowing all over the place and grabbing my attention away from her speech which I didn’t understand in the first place. No doubt she spoke with such passion and the whole time I was wondering how she could remember 19 minutes worth of words, but then it came to me. Sure she probably memorized some of it, but when you are so passionate and involved in an idea like that, you can just speak freely and exactly how you think about it, no memorization needed. For that fact, she was granted my respect and attention.
As for her thesis, “Do what you love, even if it ‘kills you’ because it's your job and you love it.” The second time around is always easier to understand because you know what the gist of the speech is. I’ve learned by being in this class to always reread or listen again because things are never clear the first time around. Anyway! I re-watched and I think (though a bit choppy) her overall speech was done spectacularly.
I think the hook was at the beginning of her speech when she was talking about how people looked at her as if she was ‘doomed’ after her first bestseller. Actually the question she asked was “Is it rational, it logical that anybody should be expected to be afraid to do the work they feel they were put on this earth to do?”I thought about this and felt that everyone could relate themselves to the question and understand where she’s coming from. Also, I liked how she followed it up with the example of her father, giving another example of her question. She always backed up everything she said with a valid, though sometimes farfetched and lengthy, example.
Her ethos definitely came in when she began to speak of the Greeks and Romans. Not like having a bestselling book isn’t credible enough, she went on to teach ancient culture, and I actually listened! I think the whole idea of having a ‘damon’ or ‘genius’ come to a person to give wisdom and assist the artist to be great is an amazing way to see creativity. Pathos was first factored in with her explanation of how one person claiming that they are genius puts too much pressure on a person and potentially kills them. It continues when she talks about meeting Ruth Stone and told the story of how she felt a poem running towards her. It was a personal experience that Gilbert shared and it brought the audience closer to her. It was sealed with a joke and left everyone with a smile.
My favorite part was “Uh… listen… you… thing.” Haha
I wasn't too crazy about the speech until she mentioned Tom Waits. After mentioning him, she had my full attention. I LOVE TOM WAITS,man!!
I thought it was long too, and to top it off, my sister was sitting next to me telling me stories and wouldn't shut up the whole time, so the entire time I was watching it, I couldn't wait for it to end.
I'm not too sure about her thesis, so I'm going to say it has something to do with creativity. I didn't clearly catch her thesis from watching it once, and I don't think I can get myself to watch it again...I liked her story about the 90 yr old poet and how her poetry came to her.
I think her hooks were her stories and revealing her fears which allowed the audience to relate to her.
ethos, logos, pathos.....since she is a successful writer, she had the credibility from the beginning. She described the process of writing and how hard it is and how easily one can get discouraged. Her pathos was her relating to her audience when including them while talking about fear.
It was an okay speech, it didn't exactly hold my attention for more than a few seconds at a time. It was well put together, however, and she had good examples and like i mentioned before, good stories to relate to her thesis.
I just think if she hadn't prolonged it, it would've been better...or maybe I'm not sure what I'm talking about.
I wish we could've done this blog on Benjamin Zander's speech because I just loved that one so much,I practically have it memorized. It's bookmarked on my computer too:) And I borrowed my dad's romantic piano Cd w/ Chopin and it's great.
But yeah...Either her speech was not too good or my blog response is not too good. I'm guessing it's me though
:)
vikki:
"First off let me begin by saying that Gilbert’s apparel distracted me the most. "
lol the first thing my sister said when she looked at the screen was, "what it she wearing?"
But i liked her style because it was like her; free, loose and comfortable.
For starters, it should be noted that this speech made a massive amount of sense to me. Not only did it help explain my random bouts of extreme intelligence that pour from me on rare occasions, but it also gave light to the fact that I am only human. It cannot be assumed that I am going to be intelligent all the time, because if I was this embodiment of genius then I would end up like Gilbert said driving myself crazy with responsibility and expectations. Not only me either, everyone of the intellectuals I categorized would be subject to this insanity-inducing responsibility and expectations, and ultimately end up mentally unstable as depicted or dead by our own hands.
For the actual starters, Gilbert's thesis seemed to be that people place too much emphasis on the implications of creativity and genius instead of just doing what their good at and allowing the inspirations to come to them when it's ready. Her the thesis delivery appeared more towards the end of the speech, but it made the entire speech more effective in the end. Her anecdote concerning how she was sitting down trying to formulate ideas for her writing and just ended up exclaiming to the void that she was doing her job and waiting for it to do its part, jumped out to me as the delivery of thesis. Although its delivery was towards the end, the beginning of the speech eludes that her entire topic concerned the implications of using creativity and how it is obtained. In actuality, presenting her thesis in this way allowed for her to sort of build up to the defining punch of the delivery. For instance if she would have stated her thesis in the beginning and then continued her speech in the same manor, it would have been incredibly less effective than it was.
It was almost as if the information given during the first portion of her speech hooked the audience directly in. In this sense the audience was hanging on to her words, anxiously awaiting to see where her stories were going to take her. It's actually a wildly effective technique considering it keeps the audience engaged and alerted, but after the thesis is delivered the hook tends to dangle. In the most basic description its like a mountain that has one really high side, and then on the opposite side of the peak the land levels off halfway through the descent. The ascent of the mountain definitely begins in the introduction of the speech where the hook is portrayed through her usage of humor in the largely cynical belief about writer's lives and fears. The humor engages the audience allowing them to feel interest in the subject matter she has to say, considering they have already found that she has the ability to make them chuckle. Her humor is on a comedic level in the opening of the speech, since she adopts the message that many comedians use to open up the crowd. This type of humor worked magnificently for her, which can be attributed to the fact it was both engaging and an interesting thought for the audience to digest.
Furthermore, the woman portrayed her thoughts in a largely logical way, progressing from the introduction of her self and her topic to the beginning of creative thought in the ancient Greece and Roman times. This mode of expression developed both her credibility, and thus her ethos, and her logos within the crowd. Her means of introducing ideas always progressed from a statement that came from a previous part in the speech, or from the starting point of real creativity in humans; the Ancient Greeks. The usage of humor also served more than just to provide a substantial hook throughout the speech. The cynicism and negativity within her humor about her profession, in some weird and twisted way, presented the idea that she knew exactly what she was talking about, considering it was largely personal experiences. The facts that she exhumed from the Classical period of the Greeks about the divine genius, also helped to establish the idea that she knew the information she was talking about.
On the other hand her pathos was very well established through the usage of clear bridges to the audiences. Her allusion to the novel phenomena Harry Potter through her mentioning of Dobby portrayed that she was not only a writer, but one of the normal people in the world who was swept by this magical phenomena. (Pun intended). Any connection that displays that the speaker is one of the audience helps to formulate pathos within the speech. Also her sense of humor and sarcasm at the idea that the one author got her inspiration by being hit by a divine entity moving through the air, bridged that connection as if the idea seemed improbable of occurring to a normal person. It was as if she was speaking from both the writer's point of view and the audiences point of view. This clear connection developed and strengthened her pathos throughout the entire piece.
-Morgan
I actually went through the same process you did to dissect the speech itself. My first time listening to it I was thoroughly distracted and fell upon the idea that it was utter garbage. Based on the fact that I knew it couldn't be utter garbage or else there would have been no point in watching and writing a blog on it, I went back and listened to it a second time. The second time I felt that it was owed to the speaker to actually pay attention so I listened closely and discovered it wasn't utter waste of breath and internet space. It was actually intellectually engaging. I just thought it should be noted we had the same thought process in listening to the speech a second time for a more efficient opinion.
Britt-
The "Ole" story made me think the same thing! "OLEEEEE OLE OLE OLE. OLEEEE, OLEEEEEEE!"
And also, the Ricky Martin song that he sang at the World Cup in '98.
"do you really want it(yeah)
do you really want it(yeah)
do you really want it(yeah)
go go go(go go go)
ole ole ole(ole ole ole)
go(go) go(go) go(go) go(go)
here we go(yeah)"
HAHAHAHHA <333 soccer losers...
First of all I have to say the speech that Elizabeth Gilbert gave was amazing, but I can’t take all the credit in recognizing all of its depth. Our family friends, the Maganelli’s, come up to Vermont with us every year. Their son Chris is probably one of the deepest, hippy-like guys that I know so we sat and watched this video and then talked about the speech and life for almost two hours! Anyways it got me thinking about a lot of things about her speech, but I’ll start with her thesis which was along the lines of the fact that creativity in a genius sense isn’t something that we can create or obtain humanly, so there’s no sense in destructing yourself over something that you won’t ever be able to physically control or be responsible for.
In her elaboration of this idea I thought she did it very professionally. While appealing to pathos, logos, and ethos, she never came across as if she was trying hard to appease all of these senses. Her logic and reasoning that went behind her ideas seemed to naturally back up her idea, and genuinely all flow together. Through the backing of her idea, her passion was displayed almost effortlessly as she clearly illustrated how she believed 110% in what she was saying. At no point did the audience have to wonder what she was talking about or need further explanation. The way she presented her idea, covering all of her bases, displayed her passion, rationale, and purpose.
Her illustration of ethos was one that was obvious and that we could pick up on from the beginning: she was the author of ‘Eat, Pray, Love.’ But beyond this, beyond the fact that she was the ‘vessel’ in the creation of a ‘freakish success’, was the fact that with the fact that she was a writer and author, she chose a different proposal. Gilbert could have taken the typical scheme of writing is a great way of getting your thoughts down on paper, it allows you to express yourself, blah, blah, etc. Now these things are all true, and very easily things that we can all relate to. But knowing this, Elizabeth Gilbert stepped out of the box. Rather than praising writing, she compels her audience by asking why all of the artists in the past have 500 years been destructive, suicidal, manic depressives. She dives further and assimilates creativity and suffering being linked. This is where I believed her credibility shines through. She loosely and abstractly begins to initiate onto another and rarely thought of belief. In her ability to recognize this aspect, and associate it to the idea of writing and being genius is something that only further demonstrates her ability to be knowledgeable, reasonable, and convincing.
The appeal of pathos is seen several times throughout her speech. Ironically, rather than using the audience itself as a way of connecting, she uses other authors, musicians, and even herself. Another feature that makes her appeal of pathos distinguished is the fact that rather than using her emotional influence in something along the lines of sad or in this case destructive and depressed, as expected, she twists her examples to be funny and humorous. In her example of Ruth Stone she creates the visual of Ruth Stone being overcome by ‘genius’ and having to capture it by grabbing it by its tail and then writing it all back wards on a piece of paper. ‘Uncanny, that’s the same process I have’ Gilbert adds. In this picture she depicts, as well as the humor that follows along with it, Gilbert creates a huge connection between her and her audience as they follow her in thought and imagery. Another example that appeals to Gilbert’s pathos is the example of Tom Wades driving and fearing to lose an idea, telling it, ‘If it really wanted to be expressed it would come back another time’, he was clearly driving. The funny examples not only add a gateway of emotion to be shared between Gilbert and her audience, but also serve to back up Gilbert’s idea of having a divine spirit or entity that comes from an unknown source.
In her interpretation of the Romans and Greeks in their position to being genius vs. having genius represents not only her logos appeal but also represent the hook in her speech. Referring back to ancient Greece where they also believed creativity didn’t come from human beings but rather was a spirit from an unidentified source definitely gave a lot of logical appeal to her argument. Along the same lines was the ancient Rome where they didn’t believe humans were clever but believed magical entity lived in an artist’s studio, known as their genius (or Dobby). Whereas Socrates believed he had the daemon for wisdom, these beings protected the artists from self blame. While all of this facts and supporting details do seem abstract in themselves, they definitely give a lot of foundation to Gilbert’s argument. Knowing that for hundreds of years this pattern has been seen as well as identified as an unidentified source, gives a lot of basis to Gilbert’s ideas. After establishing this logic behind her argument, she then ties back into the idea of artists, including herself, constantly being under pressure to perfect themselves and perform greatness when it’s not possible. In this transition is where I see the hook of the speech, where all aspects logically and abstractly are tied together.
So why not think of it in this context? It makes perfect sense, almost like an equation: show up for your half of the work, great, and if God, a spirit, being, or entity will show up for their half, then great also. And this is where we see a ‘glimpse of God’. Since we can only do our part while the other part is purely something greater, why should we ask who we are when we’re done being moved, as so many artists over the past 500 years have? I think it’s a completely humbling idea to think that as an individual, an idea is not from them, and we must accept the wonder of ‘why can we do this again.’ This idea explains the self destruction of artists, as well as the wonder of where we get gifts from. Believing in God is equivalent to the fairy where there is a spirit or being out their influencing and working through humans.
“Her movements and tone were gentle and relaxing. It's interesting to note that while she was working so hard to make her point, she showed little to no effort”
-Devon P
This is one of the most distinguishing things that stuck out to me, especially compared to the other speech we listened to on TED. She effortlessly appealed to all aspects of the audience including examples and personal stories that that audience could relate to and find humor in. She never took herself too seriously, even in her efforts to get her points across. She took the approach of letting her audience pick up on the things she was puzzling together.
I just realized I’ve completely neglected this blog for the last week. Better late than never right?
I’ve managed to get two notions about Ms. Gilbert’s speech. One, I don’t care what anyone says, but her hand gestures were overboard. It was quite difficult to take my hands off of them (I admit, I have a pretty short attention span). She reminded of Daniel Faraday from LOST. Props to anyone who knows who I’m talking about.
Anyways, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the technical aspect of her presentation. She seemed to have an almost terrified confidence about her. Very paradoxical, I know. Her tone seemed to flutter and wasn’t as strong as I thought someone of her credibility would have. The funny thing is, I don’t recall a single moment where she actually slipped up. That’s a demeanor I don’t think I’ve ever encountered before. Confidently scared.
As far as content goes, I enjoyed it for the most part. It was quite scary how broad the topic seemed, yet she managed to deliver it in an almost hauntingly yet logical way. There was an overwhelming amount of content to get out of it, but the overwhelming one I found is to humble yourself. Never attain that level of narcissism where you consider yourself better than everyone else, just because you or other people perceive you to be a genius. Genius is a temporary gift.
And she lives up to this creed, for through all the accolades she got, there wasn’t a single bit of cockiness about her. It was more of a reserved bewilderment. So I think her ethos was established well into the speech, when I felt like I understood what she was preaching, yet also living up to it at the same time. That's pretty difficult to do.
What I got out of it is one of those things that are impossible to explain. So I’ll just say I did some introspection and it opened up my views a bit. It really isn’t something I can explain in words.
Your "broad" perspective can always be broader.
THE END.
Ms Bunj!
Did you know that you can get President Obama's weekly addresses and his inauguration speech for free on iTunes?!
AND you can get TED talks for free, too!
Post a Comment