"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.
This particular talk is similar to what you should all be delivering in mere days; she had an idea, she did some research and she's talking about it. Why?
Well, why not? What is the harm in acquiring knowledge? There is none. Whether it be learning how to do something you never tried and have no business trying now that you're 108--like, oh I don't know--SNOWBOARDING, or just listening to someone's ideas about something you never really thought about before--knowledge is power. It is power at its purest because you can get exactly what you need at any given moment. That's why.
So, in light of the fact that talks 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)
23 comments:
Wow, Miss Bunje.. snowboarding? lol. Weren't you feeling a little adventurous this weekend! Ok, now on to my blog reponse.. Elizabeth Gilbert’s hook for her audience was to point out she was the author of a best selling book. This gained the audience’s respect for what she had to say. I think Elizabeth Gilbert’s thesis is that there are not a select number of genius’s in the world, but instead everyone has “genius” in them. I think she really delivered this idea when she talked about the Romans and during the Renaissance when it was thought that creativity comes within the person, not from a greater or magical power. It is effective because she explained how everyone has their own creative process and everyone expresses it differently. And do not be afraid to express what you want to do. Critique her. Well, her shoes look like they could be cute (from the distance). Her outfit is, well, creative. She is a very clear speaker. Her words are understandable. Her “jokes” throughout her talk engage her audience. She delivered her ideas by connecting everyone to what she was saying. She appealed to pathos and made what she was saying important to everyone’s life by mentioning the story about her father being a chemical engineer. She also touched on different religious origins in words. She also said that being creative doesn’t necessarily have to be art, but anything that you have talent in. She appealed to ethos and gained trust among the audience by talking about her best seller. It made me think if so many people are interested in what she is writing, I would imagine people would be interested in what she has to say. She appealed to logos (reason, logic) by talking about the history and background of creativity and the ancient ideas of why people are creative. I think that Elizabeth Gilbert has a lot of good thoughts and ideas. I agree with her on a lot of her points. I think it was easy for me to listen to her and follow along with what she was saying because she is a good speaker.
Trust me I feel your pain, Iwnet snowboarding too over the weekend for the first time. Boy, I'll tell you my rump hurts so bad, that will be the last time i ever use it to stop.
Anyway, I thought Elizabeth had a very unique way of explaining creativity. The thought of yourself not being the genius but some sort of spirit or entity assisting you,giving you that extra boost, makes sense in some kind of divine way. She delivered the message through the stories of the romans and the greeks and they interpreted a genius. As she was sharing the history of the greeks and the romans I was captured by her voice and couldn't help but listen to what she has to say. She established her ethos when she talked about all these other creative people and how they died, like through suicide or extreme mental pressure. She delivered her logos when she talked about ourselves as people always comparing our creative work to others we have already completed, just puting an enormous amount of pressure on our selves when it isn't our job to do that. When Elizabeth was talking about the interview she gave to some man and how he just started talking to the air, telling this spirit to come back at a more oppurtune time, thats when she established her pathos. Also, when she decided to do the same thing that man done, talking to this entity, she was writing the follow up to her book and started talking to some corner, where this spirit was, and all the pressure from her wrting was released. All her ideas make sense, she relates to the audience about how they come to make something creative and how they felt about it.
The thesis to me of Elizabeth Gilbert’s speech is that there is a way of thinking that won’t hurt your ego when you create something and fail and that is that something magical jumps in you and gives you inspiration. And this idea that she told the audience was very well said and made me believe in what she was saying, even though I kind of think that way when I create something. So if she can convince me I think she did her job in delivering her speech. She did very well in this speech and she had some points that made me giggle and some points that made me think. Her hook in this speech was telling stories about other well known artist who have experience this phenomenon and how they felt about and dealt with it, not that it’s a bad thing. Elizabeth’s ethos was established somewhat in the beginning when she told the audience about the artists who feel like they have wasted their lives when they can create well anymore and started to give examples of her idea. Her pathos was when she told the story of the poet who felt the creative spirit run through her and when she told the story of the tribe in Africa who dance and felt like they had the spirit of god in them. Logos was when she told the facts about what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought creative genius was. Her ideas were interesting and made scenes to me. They created something I can tell my friends when they are having doubts or sad feelings about their work, of course I will give credit to the artist that thought about this.
Snowboarding I have never once tried that so I would have no idea how much a butt would ever feel afterwards. I do understand the way she would feel about writing, it would be the same way I feel about cooking. Elizabeth's thesis is that creativity should not live in the person but be kept seprate and called upon when needed. She refered to it as a creature that lives in the walls of a home and come out as needed. No person should be consumed by their creativity but inspired buy it. One person does not live by their greatest accomplishment but by what they contiunue to do. She continued to hook you by all the stories she told you about how all creativity that inspires you creeps upon you to give you the information it has. She delivers her ethos when she talkes about divine spirits that are called damons or genius, that are like Daby the house elf. Elizabeth then delivered her pathos when she discussed the fact that genius then became the person and not just a seprate thought called upon. That people where then considered geniuses not being of a genius. I believe her loogos os when she say " I wrote a best seller what do I do after this?" People then askedher "what next." I believe in creativity that it should not be your master that you should master it.
I looked at everyone’s beginning response with “Snowboarding Bunj”. That’s funny. My first time I broke my wrist and pulled my MCL in my knee…lucky me !I think that her thesis was that with life there are great successes, but it’s the failure that can either break you or make you stronger. I think she delivered this by giving examples of what she is scared of and how pressured she feels, and felt, about the questions about fear. She also gives example of psychological contact that protects you from the outcome of your work. I think this was very effective. I found her funny and very likable. She was knowledgeable and poised. Her hook was telling different stories about different artists and different ways of writing, and being an artist. She delivers her ideas by telling interesting stories and keeps the audience laughing and wanting more. Elizabeth’s established ethos when she talked about the artists. Here she described their feelings about what they create and how they feel about each of their creations. She appealed to pathos by telling the story about Africans who danced with high spirits within them. I believe that logos came up when she talked about the creativity of all countries and countrymen, such as the Romans. I think her ideas were interesting. Either that or the way she told them, they seemed interesting. I like how she was funny, but not too funny. She knew her stories well and you could feel her interest and ambition about art.
I have honestly no idea what I just watched. It sounded like her topic didn’t come up until half way through. I was so lost in the fact that she was bouncing in her ideas. But as for her thesis, again, it didn’t seem like it came up until about 8 minutes in. I believe it may have been the difference between being a genius and having a genius. Giving someone too much credit for something distorts egos and puts too much pressure on a single person. By sharing the credit with a “genius”, a person can then be relieved of the stress to take all the blame, or credit, as long as that person puts forth all his/her effort. I think if she organized her thoughts, she could have worked with the topic better, which would have made her speech more effective. She didn’t deliver it very passionately. It seemed like she was just spitting out facts and that she had practiced memorizing her speech a bit too much. It was too monotone and her humor wasn’t exactly…humorous. Her hook may have just been the different stories she was talking about that reflected her ideas of the different types of creativity and their effects on the author. She developed her ethos, or credibility, since she is a best-selling author. Since she’s talking about creativity and pretty much its effects on writers, she obviously has plenty of knowledge and experience in that area. She appeals to pathos by being humorous and passionate about her topic. She appeals to logos by being very informational and giving enough supporting details. I personally didn’t think her ideas were very clear, but I could understand the potential of what they could have been
After watching the Ted talk on creativity genius, it opened me too look at being genius in a different perspective. Her thesis in my opinion was that being a genius come with a lot of success and stress, and sometimes failure. If your put up on that pedestal and people call you a genius, you have to make sure you fulfill those expectations which in turn could become stressful, and if your not strong enough to handle the stress you could crumble under the tremendous amounts of pressure. I think the thesis was delivered like half way through the talk. At first it could not really recognize or put a point on what exactly she was talking about, but after watching again and getting more into the talk I think I figured it out. I think the way she delivered her speech was done pretty well. I do admit at first it was hard to get into the talk but when she began to talk about how there’s a difference between being a genius and having a genius. That section drew me in more to the talk, because I never thought of it in that perspective. The way the talk progressed just made it more interesting. She developed her logos when she spoke about the ancients Romans and Greeks, she developed her pathos when she began to talk about success how everyone has a story and I’ m really not sure how she established her ethos. Her ideas opened my eyes to a different view of creativity and genius. And also made me think more deeply into the matter of are we born with the gift of being a genius or creative or does it gradually progress due to environmental factors.
I think this was the most boring thing I've watched in a long time. The last TED talk was actually pretty good. This lady did not grab my attention at any point and found it very hard to focus. I started it over 3 imes, yelled at my family for talking, and turned the speakers pretty loud. But it was all so boring. I could not watch the whole thing, I looked around the site for more interesting talks but then I got bored. I think it's hard to grab my attention with these. I did figure out she was talking about how creative people are the ones that have problems or die early. Which i agreed with, but then she started talking about Rome and crap and I just lost it. Shortly after she aid something to the audience. Long story short i couldn't watch it. I probably wont receice points for this, but i spent like 3 hours getting my talk ready and it made me realize that it will be boring like this! O well. I gave an honest effort. I'd like a more interesting talk, maybe one that doesn't take so long to watch either.
At first I wasn't really sure on what her thesis was. After watching it a second time, I think that she wanted to leave everyone with that people shouldn't be called genuises, but a genuis is some magical thing that helps them along to create things. The way she delivered it was a little bit awkward for me. It seemed like she got off to a rocky start, and at first I wasn't really interested in what she had to say. When she had started talking about the Greeks and Romans, that's what caught my interest. When you looked at her face, it didn't seem that she was nervous but she kept using the word,"um". To me, there are a lot of parts that could use a little bit of work on, but as a whole, I enjoyed watching it. I believe her hook was the funny stories she told about the lady in the field and the man driving. She kept the audience laughing with her somewhat of a humor. Her ethos was when she had described stereotypes of creative people and drinking, and also how the artists felt when they thought that they were losing their touch (creativity). Elizabeth appealed to pathos when she talked about the tribe in Africa and when the lady in the field felt like the spirit came through her. She established her logos when she talked about the ancient Greeks and gave statistics on how many artists suffer from some kind of depression of feeling like their greatest work is behind them. Her ideas where good to me. She made me interested in wanting to read her book to she what she has written.
First I just want to say that was one boring video! The woman didn’t have hook at all. I wasn’t interested in any of it and whole video it self just made me frustrated. Her thesis was when she was talking about being a genius or having a genius and im not going to lie I did not understand what she was trying to say and I think that’s her fault for being so boring. Also my house was so loud when I was trying to listen to it and I had to put on head phones to hear her so I could concentrate. But overall it was a stupid video so please Bunje from now on put on a good video and one that’s not 10,000 years long.
Wow after watching the talk, I was suprised by how I felt. I totally get what you meant by when after you watched it your soul was soothed. The talk really inspired me to have a different out look on things. I think Elizabeth Gilberts thesis was that when it comes to creativity we all have a genius inside of us that helps us when we need to draw that line between creativity and the hardships it brings such as the pressure of not being able to live up to something once you become successful. I think she developed her thesis when she asked the question "should anyone be afraid to do the work they were meant to do". She developed it by using herself as an example of how she would get feed back from people asking her if she was afraid she wouldnt be able to write a book people would ever care about again. I think it was effective to develop her thesis in steps and make it personal so the audience could understand it more. She delivered her ideas by tell different stories about artists and people she got a chance to interview and related it back to the thesis of the genius that people have inside of them to help them have that extra think they need to become successful or a "genius" in what theyre doing. She established her ethos in the beginning by starting off that she is a writer herself who is currently facing the dilemma of finding that line between creativity and fear. She appeals to pathos by being exicted and passionate and humurous throughout her entire talk connecting with the audience through her personality. She established logos with the part about the Romans and the Greeks and their perspective of creativity and genius. Overall I think Elizabeth G. was very personable and passionate but also very relatable. I could completely relate to her and the people in the stories she told about how people get their inspirations and the fear they have of failure. I feel that way sometimes too when I paint something for someone and they have these high expectations for me but in the end it think it all comes down to what the talk was about that we need to find that inner genius inside of us and learn how to use it to keep us sane to beable to continue to do what we were meant to do.
I think that she hooked people on when she started to talk about how she is scared that her carree will end and she will not come out succeful, because i think that is how everyone is. No one wnats to come out to life and in their job not knowing what they are doing or susscful. She appeled to her logos when she talked about what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought creative genius was. Her ethos was when she was talking about how she is an author and she is talking about books. I am not too sure about where her pathos came out and it did not catch my attention. I think she delivered her ideas very well and used a lot of good examples and starting off with saying that writing is basically her life. I liked her ideas about Ancient greeek and talking about what people thought back then about everything being one persons work. And how giving someone too much credit and pressure could give them bigger hear and ego.
Alright to start I keep getting these crazy errors on my computer when I go to play this video. (Unable to play the video specified: rtmp:1935//streaming.ted.com/ondemand/talks/ElizabethGilbert_2009-stream_high) I only saw maybe a little less then 10mins of this talk but I posted code to show I am not bsing. To start I feel like I am a creative person and this Ted talked really caught my attention. It’s funny when Elizabeth Gilbert points out how creatively and suffering is linked together. I find this funny because I always think about awesome writers and how they always have some tragic event when they die. In my opinion I think Elizabeth Gilbert thesis was that people can’t handle criticism. Back in ancient times a genius was some form of spirit that would let you do creative work. All the people knew about this so they wouldn’t give full credit to the artist because they would think there is something else is helping create the work. Later on they changed this to think that art comes from inside of you and know acts of spirits help you. She feels like the last 500 years has killed our creative writers because they can’t handle the stress that comes with there ideas. I m really have a hard time understanding this concept that she is talking about. This talk seemed a little unorganized and what she use to back up her beliefs seemed a little flimsy. I just feel like she is blaming people for why writers have such a hard time with there ideas. I know she tries making a connection that ideas are the reason why writers have problems but she keeps saying how people think “this or that”. I just don’t understand where she is going with this totally. I tried putting my two cents in this Bunje I hope this is worth something.
I didn't really think that this video was all that boring at all. I actually liked her witty, dry humor but i guess only the best can appreciate these things =). i think that her hook may of been the way she related her life to what she is talking about. She stated how people would come up to her after writing her bestseller, and how they basically said "aren't you afraid that you'll never live up to this standard again?" even better is how she admitted to having this fear of failure but in a way it is this fear and uncertainty that motivates her to keep writing.
Since i forgot to start out with explaining what i believed her thesis was, I'll do that now. I think that her thesis has to do with the evolution of the stress and challenges that "creative geniuses" have to deal with. Many years ago, there was a low amount of stress riding on people since they believed there was a "supernatural" being who came and enlightened you. So if you made something that didn't come out so well you could pretty much blame it on the genius who decided to suck and not help you out enough. However, as time progressed people began to change their ideas about this and started thinking that creativity dwells within the artist. So now there is no longer that scapegoat when your ideas floundered and everyone hated them. This creates a great amount of stress for artists trying to live up to their previous standards, especially if one is suffering from a creative block.
My impression was, well... i liked it to be quite honest. i enjoyed how she talked about ancient folklore and their original ideas as to how this creativity came to exist in someone. She was also able to add humor into her stories even though they weren't quite straightforward jokes, instead they were cleverly disguised in i guess a more sarcastic manner? I suppose her ethos was created when she began describing the stereotypes of modern creative artists, which was that they drink and are manic depressives. And i guess she may have created her pathos when she went into detail about the Africans and their high spirited tribal dancing/celebrations. and the logos was formed when she began describing the ancient Romans and Greeks. I enjoyed listening to this speech, and the sound of her soothing voice was calming, like a gentle babbling brook in the midst of springtime. No but really i liked her tone and her content as well.
To be honest I really liked the first talk ALOT more than this talk. I couldn't stay focused throughout the video because it seemed boring. I just couldn't really get into it. But anyways, I think her hook was when she talked about her memoir and how it became a big sensation and then afterwards people looked at her differently. Well, i think her thesis was how genius comes with so many pressures and so much stress. She says that she beleives that the pressures have been killing off our artists for the last 500 years. I think she established ethos when she refferred to her book and how people asked if she was afraid of not succeeding in writing another book that people will actually care about. I beleive she appealed to logos when she was stating how the Romans thought that creativity didn't come from humans and that it was a spirit that came into the body. To tell you the truth, I couldn't really pick out the pathos. Overall I think she did a good job with her ideas but I guess her type of talk wasn't for me. The talk on classical music kept me interested throughout the whole video unlike this one where i had to keep catching myself going out of focus.
First things first Ms. Bunjjj i don' know how you made it off the lift after hearing Paul explain you only have on foot strapped in, so i know your rump hurtssss. But now to this difficult talk. I liked the beginning but she lost me from the middle on. She is extremely monotone making it hard to get into the speech. I kept restarting and rewinding , but there was no hope. When Elizabeth brings in genuis' and says everyone has genius in them i think that was her thesis, because her paper is in a way on one's creativity. Obviously you have to be intelligent to write a back, so when she started off saying she had just written an awrd winning book that caught my attention so i believe this is her hook. Not only did that hook me in, but it gave me a sense of securtity and made me trust that her speech was going to be brilliant. Even thought this speech was no my favorite i do believe her points had meaning i just couldn't clearly see them. But back to the topic she states on how people have genius in them. She supported this well with the romans trough the rennaisaince. The romans believe creativity comes from the person not jus magically, and i too agree with this. Anyone can be creative if they excercise there mind by looking at things i depth and thinking them through, and not always just applying logic. When she brought her own fathers career into the speech, and also many religion views this was pathos. It appealed to peoples actual lives, morals, and beliefs.
Cracking jokes throughout the speech, her sense of style, and stright forward opinion all kept me hooked. Even thought her clothes were a beat weird, they too were creative. Manly i believe her award winning book made a huge imapct on the audience. Even though she bounced back between religion,beliefs,creativity, and her own personal life it all tied in at then end. Overall i think her speech was pretty good even though it was a litle difficult for me to understand. I think the more i watch these videos i might be able to adpat and actual understand them a little better. My favrotie speech was the first one. But Elizabteh had her own unique way of showing/explaining her points and i think this is how people stayed hooked.
Oh my goodness Ms. Bunje i have no idea how you tried snowboarding after Paul gave us his presentation of snowboarding. I always looked forward to snowboard, but after all that I heard from you and Paul, i don't think its going to happen anytime soon. In my opinion, I liked the first speech way better than this speech. I think it may have been because I didn't really understand what she was talking about and I would have to go back and listen to it all over again. But I just kept getting lost. I don't know maybe it was just me. I believe that her thesis was when she was saying that we all have a genius inside us. And from that comes success, but it also somes with failure and that failure can either break you and make you into a stronger person. She gave examples by saying that she is afraid about pressure and rejection because who really isn't? Who in life likes to be rejected, cause I know I don't. I think that her hook was when she began to tell stories about different writers and artists. Her ethos was when she begins to say how artists feel that they have wasted their lives. She also started to make jokes and began to have the audience start laughing. Her pathos was when she began to tell a story about the poet who felt a creative spirit that ran through her. Her logos was when she began to tell facts about what the ancient Greeks and Romans. Even though she has a different style of explaining things, everything that she talked about somehow related to something in her life.
Well first, it was hard for me to follow this talk. I start to catch on to what she was saying but then I guess I dosed off. She is very hard to follow. I guess it is because she is a little dull with her info. But, there is some good quality of information in her talk like how people felt about a "genius" or, "a person's genius" in history.
Her hook was when she was comparing what she going to talk about with her life. She basically gave short stories of herself and other writers about there books. She claims writers have a rep of being mentally unstable, for example writers committing suicide. It is all involving life's work. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing her thesis is about the genius in people. Her thesis is how people can handle the emotional risk of creativity. I like her talk because it is very thoughtful. I like learning about the things people don't talk about. To be more specific, I like to learn about the human mind, thoughts, and actions, or in one word psychology. I also like how she is talking about the "a person's genius" instead of calling a person a genius. She starts to get personal into her topics. That is another way how she catches on to her audience. Overall, I thin this was a good talk. The only problem is that it is hard to follow. It is even harder to get a full idea on what she is talking about. There is a lot of good info in this talk. It is the kind of thing that you have to watch about 3-5 times or more.
I think her thesis was that everyone has a genius instead of geniuses being some special random person, it's really everyone that are geniuses. She was able to develop this by first, explaining about her best-selling book and how she believes it will most likely be her only masterpiece. She uses that example talk about how genius writers get fear with the work they can do. This information that she projects then turns into how the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that genius was this magical spirit like thing that enters into everyone. This starts up her explanation about how she thinks it's false that there is only a select few "geniuses" and everyone would put too much pressure of that single "genius". It was effective for the most part, but I don't think it was effective enough to have everyone listening on the edge of their seats to her. There were probably a handful of people dozing off in that audience. It was kind of boring honestly. She was quite weird too and probably tuned a few people out. She talked an awful lot about fairies, magical creatures and DOBEY from Harry Potter. It was annoying.
Her hook was a little hard to find. I didn't quite follow what she was saying at some parts, but I think her hook was bringing in the audience to relate to a single conclusion we have all been a part of. Which is that we are all fearful of not "being" a genius and we worry too much about succeeding and being better than other people. Everyone can relate to that statement and since the audience is being involved, they pay attention. She delivered her ideas in a bunch of different ways. She used her own examples for things, she brought the audience into a few points she had, a lot of humor was used to keep the audience interested, too. She established ethos by explaining a few historical ideas and her own experiences that seemed very truthful and knowledgeable. She also named a few poets and writers and their life experiences which lets you know that she studied up or knows things about other people like her kind of thing. She appealed to pathos by explaining our fear of rejection and the pressures of being a genius by our peers. It draws a connection to her audience, because they probably have all felt those emotions and those emotions trigger their brain to remember so. She appealed to logos by explaining the Greeks and Romans theory on what a genius is. She also talked about the people in deserts of North Africa and how the dancers there do remarkable things. She also describes situations that have happened to other writers or artists that support her ideas and theories about creativity and genius-ness. I thought her ideas were pretty cool. She seemed real intelligent and I believe she can create another best-seller book from all the ideas and passion she seems to hold within herself. She informed the audience that we all are geniuses and we all can do it if we didn't let our fears and anguish get in the way.
for real ms bunje i fell asleep while watching this video i tried paying attention but my eyes kept closing, but anyway i resatarted the video and got what she was talking about a little, based on what i seen i her thesis was saying that when it comes to creativity and all we all have a genius inside, but most of us dont know how to use it or know that we have it. she asked the audience if they were cool with the ideas, and she startet telling the audience her opinions by saying that she thinks that the idea was dangerous and didnt want it to go to the next century and that we should encouarge our great creative minds to live. she established ethos in the beginning when she first started talking about herslef and, by saying that she was a writer and wanted to be a writer since she was young, she established pathos by connecting to the audience.i couldnt figure out where she establish logos. i think that she did an alright job but not better than the the other video we saw it was better
I believe that her thesis is that creativity and suffering do not have to be linked together.Her delivery was very effective because she talked about how Mr. Norman saying that with every book he was killing himself a little more.Elizabeth's hook was talking about how people come to her and ask if she is afraid of not doing anywhere near as good as her last book. The ethos was acheived when she was speaking of the pressure of being called a genius is like eating the sun. Her pathos was the story of the bull fighter performing and doing amazing things even showing a glimpse of god. But then waking up the next morning and knowing that it may never happen again,and worrying about what he will do with the rest of his life. Logos was shown when she brought up how Greeks and Romans belived that damons helped the artists with their genius. I enjoyed her talk and liked how she said to believe that the skills given to you are not your but are only on loan to you.
I believe that the woman’s thesis is that creativity isn’t something that we are born with, but something we acquire from nature. Along with that she gets the point across that being called a genius is too much pressure for a person as is being told that she created something so good that she may never match it again. She has adopted a new mindset that is that she isn’t a genius but that she has had genius loaned to her from the universe. She tells anecdotes to portray her point to the audience. She uses her own emotion as a hook to connect to the audience. She talks about hear fear of being a one hit wonder in the book world and about the pressure she is put under by everyone that comes up to her and asks if she thinks she is capable of writing something as good as her first book. Even though I did find this speech rather boring, the stories about creativity just coming to someone like a wave and history that she presented on beliefs about creativity's causes caught my attention.
Post a Comment