This is probably the only music video that can combine cuteness and tragedy within three minutes and twelve seconds:

Song: “Aberdeen”

Artist: Cage the Elephant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZBmcSBoRAE

One of the most difficult to chew facts of life is that one never has complete control over what happens in life.  The frustration of the inability to manipulate reality is described in the song “Aberdeen” by Cage the Elephant.  According to lead singer and songwriter of Cage the Elephant Matt Schultz, “Aberdeen” describes the rock star’s difficulty accepting that life has no regard of plans or expectations.

The music video tells a similar story in a very cute, but tragic tale of a dragon who wants to befriend humans, but his unfortunate large size kills townspeople as he visits the city and he is eventually killed.  Although the dragon had laudable intentions, to befriend humans, his large size prevents kills humans.  In order to protect the citizens, the townspeople kill the dragon.  No matter how hard he tries in the music video to redeem his character in the eyes of the people, the harm he had done caused them to permanently perceive the dragon as evil.  This aspect shows that the dragon cannot control the minds of people, regardless of his efforts to improve his reputation.

This music video conveys the innocence of the dragon and his likable intentions through the texture of the film.  The entire music video is composed of clay figures and scenes.  The models look more cartoonish than realistic.  Many children played with play doh in their childhood.  Thus, the texture reminds viewers of the free-spiritedness and uncorrupted mind of children, reflected in the mind of the dragon.  The bias in this music video is very obviously in support of the dragon.  The cartoonish construction of the figures downplays the harmfulness the dragon causes to the town.  When the dragon crushes humans, the humans turn into an unrealistic puddle of red.

Throughout the music video, the dragon never speaks, yet his thoughts are communicated very clearly through what the cameraman decides to show the audience.  The music video initiates with the dragon playing with a mini human figure, the dragon had presumably made, and a dragon mini figure that matched the size of the human.  This scene reveals that the dragon means no harm to humans.  After the dragon’s first visit to the city, the viewer sees how ashamed he feels about the destruction he had caused.  The dragon is shown watching the city news that portrayed the dragon as a danger, and the viewer sees the dragon shake his head low in shamefulness.

The miscommunication between the dragon and the townspeople is most evident in a scene where the dragon presents a statue of a dragon and a boy together with the inscription “friends.”

However, for reasons out of the dragon’s control, the dragon drops of the statue before the humans can read it, and the broken statue reads “die,” and the dragon figure appears to be eating the human.

In short, the cinematographers cause viewers to root for the dragon by producing an innocent and pure image of the dragon through the effects of the clay choice of medium and the cartoon appearance of the figures, while allowing viewers to peak into the mind of the dragon through specific scenes shown, as well as, communicating the misunderstanding between the dragon and the humans through particular scenes.  The appeal to the emotions the production has, in addition to the clarity in which the plot is communicated despite no dialogue, makes this music video “Aberdeen” by Cage the Elephant, a great visual story.

Here is a link to my TED Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxn2PnoN_c4&feature=youtu.be

I like to end on a good note, so I am going to start my critique of my TED talk by analyzing my weaknesses and finish by ending with my strengths.

Weaknesses:  The most prevalent flaw of my TED talk lied in the purpose of my TED talk.  My speech centered on a trend,, which I viewed as annoying, in the shows of television networks, but I never fully addressed the explanation of the trend.  Also, the TED talk did not have a clear goal.  Personally, I wanted the TED talk to encourage people to watch the educational shows on the nonfiction TV networks.  However, I cannot impinge my interests on other people.  In fact, after my speech, one of the audience members admitted to liking the shows I had written off as less educational.  My TED talk simply expressed my frustration with the content of the television programs on the three different networks.

Regarding my delivery and presentation, I wish that the TV schedule pictures had bigger font so everyone could have seen them better.  Also, I didn’t realize how fast I talked throughout the speech.  Practicing the speech, I knew I had to talk at a brisk pace to stay under five minutes, but during my speech, my nerves caused me to speed up so much so that I was one minute under five minutes.  Another area of delivery I woud like to improve is my hand gestures.  With the clicker in my hand, I tended to keep my hands in a fixed position , holding the clicker.  Next speech I give, I plan on freeing up my hands more.  Overall, my visuals and talking pace could use some improvement.

Strengths:  Personally, despite my quick speaking pace during the TED talk, I think I seemed comfortable.  My tone of voice was suitable.  I think I managed a perfect level of conversational tone and formal tone. Despite the smallness of the text on my visuals, I think I chose very appropriate pictures that conveyed my message well.

Overall:  I would like to improve my gestures and talking pace.  Next time, I will emphasize the relevancy of my topic to the audience.  Despite these areas of improvement, I am pleased with my comfortable presence speaking in front of the audience.

TED Talks

Oh really, does TED talk?  The first time I heard of TED talks I thought that there was a person named Ted who was a super genius that had his own successful talking program.  Boy was I wrong –  (I thought that Led Zeppelin was a man, so this pattern isn’t that surprising in me) – in a good way, though!  TED talks often engage my mind.  I am never bored watching a TED talk.  However, despite the efforts of the program to introduce new ideas to audiences, I feel that many of the TED talks (at least the ones I have seen) contain really trite themes.  As I browsed through the TED talks website, though, I realized that my high school English teacher limited the TED talks our class watched to cliché topics because that fits her personality and tastes.

To start, one TED talk she showed discussed the question of whether or not art can change the world.  I’ll be honest, I thought this topic was mildly cheesy.  Of course the speaker was going to prove that art can change the world.  Of course it was aimed at inspiring the audience to get involved.

Another TED talk she had our class watch displayed a woman giving a very emotional poem she had written for her daughter about embracing life.  Although the woman’s performance of the poem was spectacular, the message was not something I had not heard before.

I subsequently went on the TED talk website and found that there are numerous topics and some really intriguing discussions that I may even want to watch in my free time.

In short, I had a bad first impression of TED talks, but now I see how diverse TED talks can really be.

When the Reckless Use Rhetoric

                On rare occasions, Greek rhetoric meets with Greek life – as in the Greek life of a college campus.  In the film Animal House, which centers on the shenanigans of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity, such is the case.  The Delta Tau Chi fraternity brothers face expulsion and sulk.  One brother, Bluto, makes it his mission to raise their spirits and have them pull one last prank.  Considering the personalities of his fellow brothers and the situation they are in, Bluto employs dimwitted logos and arousing pathos to convince his comrades to face their fate with an iron fist; though with weak ethos, he needs outside aid to make his proposition a reality.

To start, Bluto sets the vengeful tone of his speech proposing one final prank against the dean, based on his knowledge of the Delta Tau Chi’s openly hostile relationship with the dean, who had just expelled the Deltas.  This hostile relationship between the Deltas and the dean had been ongoing since the Deltas’ existence.  The dean of the Deltas’ college Dean Wormer, had always been “out to get” the Deltas.  The Deltas had caused so much havoc in the college, such as killing a horse in the dean’s office and sleeping with his wife, that Dean Wormer made it his personal mission to have them removed.  Seeing that the Deltas were already on probation, he put them on “double secret probation,” a term he invented.  After having revoked the Deltas’ charter for hosting a rowdy party, the dean finally expelled the Deltas for their extremely poor grades.  This final act of the dean against the Deltas crushes the Deltas’ spirits.  The exigence is obvious to Bluto: his beloved brothers are letting Dean Wormer have the last stand, which gives the brothers a sense of defeat.  To regain their dignity, Bluto proposes the Deltas throw one last prank on the dean and the college.  Ready for the final retaliation, he ferociously yells to the brothers, “Wormer – he’s a dead man!”

A major factor into how Bluto frames his speech is his awareness of his audience, the fellow brothers.  Bluto delivers his speech in a forceful, yet simplistic way considering the rowdy personalities and limited intelligence of the brothers.  Bluto’s statements are brash, reflecting the extreme behavior of the brothers.  The Deltas are infamous for their pranks around campus.  It is their character.  For example, they poured fizzies into the swimming pool at the college swim meet and delivered the medical school cadavers to the Alumni dinner.  The Delta fraternity is considered the “worst house on campus” (Kroger, 1978) and full of “animals” (Katy, 1978) according to outsiders.  Considering these two points, Bluto communicates in an “animalistic” way, shouting with anger.  In addition, the language of the speech is brought upon by the simplemindedness of the Deltas.  Though the Delta’s cheat on many of their exams, the brothers’ GPAS range between 0.0 and 1.6.  As one can see, the Deltas regard school as a low-priority and would not value a long-winded and complex speech.  Thus, Bluto’s words are simple and phrases, common.  He opens his speech with, “What’s this lying-around shit?!” (1978). Rather than saying, “Why are we sulking in self-pity?”  Bluto invents terms like “lying-around” and adds profanities, which match the language of his audience.  In summary, Bluto takes into account the animalistic nature and limited intellectual values of his audience, the brothers, as he delivers his speech.

Speaking of simplicity, Bluto’s use of logos follows suit.  Bluto uses a historically inaccurate analogy between World War II and their situation to prove that the Deltas should fight on.  He says, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Hell no! And it ain’t over now.” The brothers recognize the inaccuracy of his statement, which downplays his point.  Also, Bluto uses a trite motivational maxim to convince the Deltas to take one last stand.  He uses the commonplace, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!” (1978). The major premise is that the going is tough for the Deltas.  They have just been expelled.  The minor premise is that the Deltas are strong, “tough.”  Thus, the conclusion is that the Deltas should mobilize.  This maxim is very general and fails to make the brothers find substantial purpose in one last prank.  In short, Bluto’s logic is too weak to motivate his audience into running to action with him.

As his last appeal to his audience, Bluto’s use of pathos follows Gorgias’s argument that changing peoples’ emotions can help people change their minds.  Bluto tries to change the hearts of the brothers from feeling defeated to feeling unstoppable.  He starts by highlighting how pathetic the boys are being compared to how they usually were.  “What the f**k happened to the Delta I used to know?” (1978).  This question implies that the Deltas have changed for the worse, causing some brothers to reflect on their “we-don’t take crap” past, and how that attitude has diminished now.  He goes on to draw a sentimental appeal asking, “Where’s the spirit?  Where’s the guts, huh?” leading the brothers to reminisce on their past and be ashamed of how they are responding to their situation now.  He shows them how cowardly they are being by stating, “This could be the best night of our lives, but you’re going to let it be the worst.” His statement emphasizes how the Deltas are succumbing to the very system they used to fight against.  Bluto tries to make the Deltas see that if they don’t take up his proposition, they are cowards.  He mimics a refutation a brother might have to his proposition with a cry-baby voice saying, “Ooh we’re afraid to go with you, Bluto; we might get in trouble.”  The cry-baby voice is intended to make the brothers feel like they are being weak, babies rather than the tough college kids they are.  Bluto attempts to spread his feeling of frustration over the sadness by saying, “Not me!  I’m not going to take this!  Wormer – he’s a dead man!  Marmalard, dead!”  The extreme, offensive nature of these statements encourages the brothers to take a stand and strike back.  Generally speaking, Bluto tries to change the minds of his brothers from feeling defeated to feeling strong by making the brothers realize their cowardliness in his pathos appeal.

A major contributing factor to the detraction of Bluto’s speech early on was his lack of ethos.  Bluto has unfavorable situated ethos.  Taking Bluto seriously is hard for the brothers to do because they know his extreme personality.  Bluto tends to be the one to start some of the most tremendous pranks the frat has ever pulled.  For example, Bluto told fellow brother, Flounder, to capture a rival frat brother’s horse, lead it to the dean’s office, and shoot it.  Bluto also started a food fight in the cafeteria.  Additionally, he promoted the idea of the house’s holding a toga party, famously chanting “Toga! Toga! Toga!”  To the Deltas, another prank coming from Bluto is nothing new.  In fact, they figure the prank will probably lead to a worse situation.  Also, Bluto loses a lot of credit from the brothers due to his stupidity.  Bluto has the lowest GPA in the Delta Tau Chi house of 0.0.  He has been in college for seven years, failing to graduate in a normal time period.  The brothers consider him a fool. When Bluto opens his speech with, fellow Stork responds to Bluto, calling Bluto a moron.  As Bluto gives his historical analogy of World War II, the brothers recognize the inaccuracy and shrug it off with indifference as if what Bluto is saying is not significant.  None of the brothers act on Bluto’s proposition until one of the brothers, Eric Stratton, does.  Once Stratton joins Bluto, the other brothers follow suit.  However, even Stratton admits that Bluto is psychotic.  A key reason the boys join along with Stratton is because Stratton has stronger situated ethos than Bluto.  Though not the official president of the frat, Stratton is felt to be the unofficial leader of the house.  Stratton is the ladies’ man of the frat, due to his natural charm.  He is also the recruitment chair, having some hierarchical power over the boys.  When in trouble, Stratton smooth talked the Deltas out of the court hearing the Deltas had to go to.  Thus, when Stratton thinks Bluto’s point is worth acting on, the rest of the boys agree.  In summary, Bluto’s poor situated ethos undermines his speech, but hotshot Stratton agrees with Bluto, causing the whole frat to join in on the prank.

In conclusion, Bluto considers his situation and audience well in his language and tone of his speech, but his poor ethos and weak logos overshadow his strong pathos, causing his proposition to fail until Stratton lends his ethos to Bluto.   The Deltas went on to perform the most extreme prank ever on the Homecoming Parade, going out with a bang.  Whoever thought the power of Greek rhetoric on Greek life could cause explosions?

One summer I got Netflix.  I could finally watch any movie I wanted to – except for rated R ones, according to my parents.  Browsing Netflix, I came across a film called Into the Wild.  I really wanted to see it, but it was rated R.  As I walked through Target, I saw the book with the film was based on, and purchased it.  Little did I know how this book would change my life.

above: The cover of the book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer.

Into the Wild is a biography of a man named Chris McCandless, who donates all of his money to the charity OXFAM and leaves his home for the open roads, ending his days alone in the wild of Alaska. Before I had read his life story, I had viewed the world very materialistically.  I wanted to be a famous actress, live in a mansion, and have expensive clothes.  My view of success dealt with money and tangible items.

Chris’s lifestyle opened my eyes to what life really is.  I found that in the end, it doesn’t really matter what things you have.  What counts is the memories you make, the people you meet, and the experiences you have.

My changed outlook on life manifested during a trip I took the next summer in Europe.  Before I had read Into the Wild, I had never really been interested in venturing beyond my comfort zone.  I looked forward to the shopping in Europe.  McCandless inspired me to try new things – to experience all I can.  Rather than sitting around a youth hostel my group was staying at, I went with a couple friends on a spontaneous hike.  We found a beautiful dam system hidden in the woods.  While waiting for an event, I mustered up the courage to talk to a friendly couple from France.  On tours, I made sure to stand the closest to the tour guide to absorb all of the information that I could from them.  In all, though I didn’t buy much or have many souveniers, my experiences and new friends added so much to my life that tangible items could never match.  You could say Chris indirectly caused me to get the most out of my trip.

Another manifestation of my shift in world view arose while watching home videos with my gramma.  My dad’s family group up dirt poor.  After my dad’s parents had separated, my dad’s mother had to raise three children alone.  (However, my dad’s dad did help out somewhat financially.)  During her family consumer science class in high school, my dad’s sister had calculated that they had lived below poverty level.  However, my dad’s sister and all agree that they had never noticed they were that poor.  As I watched their giggly, young faces light up the TV screen in the home videos, a point from Into the Wild was reemphasized to me.  One of McCandless’s last words (written) were “Happiness, only real when shared.” My dad’s family had so much joy and good times because they made time together.  Unlike wealthier kids who had expensive toys and other items to preoccupy themselves with, my dad’s siblings made their own fun.

In summary, reading the book Into the Wild and watching my dad’s homevideos from when he was a kid has changed my view of success.  My goal in life is not to be rolling in money; my goal in life now is to have as many stories to tell my grandchildren as my gramma and dad have to tell me.

In elementary school they were everywhere – all over the cafteria walls: “Got Milk?” posters.  The classic celebrity with a milk mustache.  As I was thinking about rhetoric in my daily life, these posters came to mind.

For starters, the ad uses ethos in a very superficial way.  Targeting an elementary school audience, the posters usually featured the current pop singers like Hannah Montana or superhero film star like Batman.  As a child, seeing Britney Spears drink milk made milk seem cooler.  My six-year-old brain would find credibility in this ad simply because I was familiar and even a fan of the person advocating milk, rather than lending Spears credibility because Spears’s knowledge of nutrition or health.  In short, the “Got Milk” ads speak to their audience’s rationale of credibility by using figures that are popular, but don’t necessarily have any expertise in nutrition.

In regard to pathos, the ads made drinking milk seem less of a “healthy move” and more like a “good time” – as good time as one can have drinking in a cafeteria.  The mustaches on the celebrities always cracked me up.  If the celebrities were willing to get a milk mustache than drinking that milk is totally worth it, I’d think. Also, I admired some of the celebrities featured.  In awe of them, I felt connected to them as I drank milk because drinking that milk was something we had in common, while everything else in our lives are so different.  In summary, the pathos in the “Got Milk?” ads is found in its use of humor and popular spokespeople.

As for logos, many of the “got milk?” ads contained a short paragraph as regarding the importance of milk consumption.  Such explanations can be seen in the ad of Batman pictured below.

Finally, the design of the “Got Milk?” ads were great for elementary school kids.  The simple message, the lack of lengthy paragraphs and complicated statistics that kids can’t understand, and the highlighting of the celebrity draw one’s attention to this ad.  The information that was presented contained concepts and vocabulary that could be understood by most ages.  On the whole, the “got milk?” ads’ designs spoke matched their audiences perfectly.

The “Got Milk?” ads have been a part of my life since second grade and continue to be seen throughout the years.  This continuing presence goes to show the timelessness of a well created advertisement.

“Imagine everyone in the room is naked and you’ll feel more comfortable,” is a piece of advice often told to someone about to give a speech.  Let’s just say luckily I did not need that advice.  Everyone was perfectly clothed in my mind as I presented my speech.

But I didn’t feel comfortable because I had rehearsed the speech down-pat (although I did recite it several times to my roommate’s amusement).  I felt comfortable because I knew the speech.  I felt it.  I became one with it. (just kidding!)  The way my mind works made the speech seem perfectly logical.  The organization and content fit into the reasoning of my brain and patterns of my thinking that there was no way I could have skipped over any parts in the talk without the speech sounding nonsensical.  Through this experience I learned the importance of simplicity and clear organization when presenting a speech, because these factor into how well I will know the content to present.

Also, I learned that my nerves hit me in the first words I say.  I spoke really quickly in the beginning, but luckily I eased into a normal pace as the speech went on.  I also learned that I am very stiff when I talk.  I need to loosen up and use the “stage” (aka front of the room) to engage the audience more.

Regarding other talks, within the past two day of presentations, I was really impressed with everyone in different ways.  Some people chose really interesting topics.  While others made seemingly mundane topics rather interesting.  In addition, I learned that I enjoyed the talks where the speakers were more casual with the audience.  A pattern between the speeches that I enjoyed the most was the presence of a clear direction or purpose.  The better organized speeches tended to have openers that sounded like openers, arguments that contributed to the purpose, and conclusions that sounded like conclusions.  In some speeches, the conclusion sounded like a halt in the middle of a road.  I never noticed the importance of a good conclusion.  A conclusion gives that lasting impression the audience should get and a reminder to the audience as to why they were listening in the first place.  But maybe that’s a style thing.  To each his own.  On the whole, I am really impressed by the talks, and enjoy listening to them.