After reading the "Noble Lecture" by Morrison, and "This is Water" by Wallace i realized they had the same idea behind them but the way the handled them was totally different. In the "Noble Lecture" it shows how people see the things through language, while "This is Water" showed that people see things through the other people that are all around them.

In "Noble Lecture" the people cant see the things that are all around them. So this is the reason why the people cant understand the lady and the way she does things. She knows what the bird means and doesn't need to feel it to know what it is she knows that it is very special piece of nature that needs to be taken care of. She uses her language to push the people around her lower and lower. What she is trying to say is simple our words can hurt people just by saying simple things, so people need to be careful when they are speaking to others Because even saying that is gay could really hurt someone, even though that they didnt know was gay all along but you literally just said who cares about them. So the way she is talking is different than normal and it is just harder to understand she is using her words carefully.

Then in This is Water" Shows that people are more thinking of themselves and see that the other people are only there to get in their way, even though they both can have people only thinking of themselves. People need to not only think of themselves they need to also think of the other people in their world because the other person could be going through something as well so you need to not be the person thinking you are always right because chances are you are wrong. The children were especially only thinking of themselves because they didn't care about the old lady they had their own intentions. So sometimes you need to slow down and see how other people are and try to see things from their point of view and you could learn something from them.

Compare and Contrast

When I first read “Nobel Lecture” by Toni Morrison and “This is Water” by David Wallace they seem to have nothing to do with each other, so I tried to look at it in a few different ways. After a while, because “Nobel Lecture” was much harder to read then the other story, I saw that they are trying to convey to us the same principle, responsibility. We have a responsibility on how we use language and how we let it affect others. As shown in Toni Morrison’s “Nobel Lecture” the “bird” is language and how we use it is up to us. In the end, you have a choice in what you believe and how you use it, whether or not it "dies" or hurts others is up to you. 

 “This is Water” is more about how we treat others and the state of thinking we all use as default. Though both stories show signs of people only thinking about themselves, "This is Water" focuses on it. He tells us that we have a state of mind that we easily go to where we only think of ourselves and problems. This is a problem because everyone else waiting in that line with you might be going through the same or harder situations than you are. When we generally think only about ourselves and not others, we all get affected. I mean who thinks about the other person’s situation while on the road? I am usually just yelling at people to get out of my way. Thinking about what he has said has made me more aware about other's perspectives for the time being.

The children who walked into the blind woman’s home and asked the question were only thinking of their own purpose and not about the person they were talking to. The “Nobel Lecture” also shows that people do not see what is right in front of them. That is why the visitors got upset with the woman’s abstract way of answering them. She doesn’t have to see or feel the bird that is in their hands because what they do with it is their responsibility. Now the “Nobel Lecture” also talks about how language is our responsibility to keep alive or to kill it. This depends on how each and every one of us uses the language.

Compare and Contrast

Mutually these compelling speeches persuade you to think twice about every word you dare let come from your mouth. Although they both have the potency to make you so conscientious, each overwhelming experience of enlightenment is quite different. In Toni Morrison’s Noble Lecture she relates the skill of holding your tongue to the life of the language and how, to use it properly, you must be willing to be patient and work together to keep it alive. On the other hand, in David Foster Wallace’s  “This is Water” commencement speech, he sees people as though they are all living in their own versions of I’m-the-center-of-the-universe stories in their minds and we should take the time to think of other’s situations’ before jumping to our own conclusions.

            Morrison tends to stress multiple times in her speech the responsibility of the life or death of language and at the end concludes that it is all’s responsibility. This leads you to believe that she perceives it as something most valuable to her and not thinking before using the delicacy that is language disgraces it, putting it to shame thus letting it die. Her strong belief that language should be persevered and thought highly of shows though greatly in her speech and easily persuades you to also do so and think before you speak.

            However compelling Morrison is, Wallace is equally as compelling. Wallace uses a brief humors story about three fish to exemplify how ignorant and self-centered we human beings can be. The two young fish are so closed minded and unwilling to think about what possibly the elder fish could have meant that they say the first thing that comes to mind. This gives you a fun analogy to relate to and see just how right Wallace is by the end of his speech. Wallace is convinced that this closed-mindedness is what disallows us to live a happier life. He believes by taking a moment to realize that others too have complications helps us live more at peace with others.

            The theme of thinking before you speak or act is clear in both speeches and truly encourages you to take their advice to heart. Although they demonstrate the idea differently with different analogies, they both do it well.            

Comparison & Contrasting

The two speeches, "This is Water" by David Wallace and "Noble Lecture" by Toni Morrison, may not have seemed to be alike when you first read them. But when you understand the deeper meaning of the readings you will shorty find out they are similar in many unique ways. The two styles of writing have differences
 in the way the message is presented, but in the messages in itself shows one common moral.

In the beginning of each speech, they gave us a common story, simple yet meaningful, about common topics most could easily relate to. Instead of sticking to the story, as Tony Morrison did throughout the speech, Wallace explains to us the point "the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones hardest to talk about." Wallace shows his audience this story an speaks more of reality, while Morrison sticks to the story using a more fictional scene.

Noble Lecture conveys also the disappointment of the current generation by convincing herself that the language she speaks will eventually die from "..carelessness, disuse, indifference and absence of esteem.." This is similar to the message in "This is water" she explains how peoples natural default settings allow everyone to become naturally self-centered with a "constant monologue inside of your own head." With that in mind you see both speaking about how the future will evolve negatively.

 The two authors have there own ways of teaching us the "morals" in ways, Wallace shows a person who is angry and has an apathetic attitude towards his/her life. Everything going on in every ones life is less than her. No one had even attempted to aggravate this person, and she believed her mind was working the way it was supposed to. In Nobel Lecture it shows a older woman, blind but wise,  looks at life in a positive manner. Although the children had came to show she was a fraud, in the end she looked to them as teaching her something as well as them getting a lesson also.

The way they come across the audience plays the biggest role in the difference between the two speeches. Toni Morrison  is speaking to the crowd of people who are attending her receiving of the Nobel Peace award .Wallace seems to be talking to college kids about how life "usually" is.

Compare and Contrast

 
  In both "This Is Water" by Wallace and "Noble Lecture" by Morrison they're is a similar idea in how they picture the world; see life, even though they see it in completely different ways. For Morrison in her noble speech she explains how a person's way of seeing the world is based upon language. In the other hand in "This Is Water" by Wallace he explains how a person's way of seeing the world is through what a person thinks.

  In the article "This Is Water" by Wallace explains how people always think they are the center of the universe which in a way blocks seeing in another person's perspective. Wallace says in his article "it is our default-setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth." (Page 2) Which I think he meant thinking this way is natural for us, that we tend to think this way because it's much easier putting yourself in the center of the universe and wanting your needs met, than to put yourself in the other's shoes and to think of the other's needs to be met also.

  In Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" explains how people's perspective of life is through language. In her story of the older wise women, the women was approached by young boys which asked her if the bird was dead or alive? Although she didn't know if the bird was dead or alive since she was blind yet she answered the question in a language that was going to affect the teenagers either in a positive or negative way.

  Although both authors would agree that life can be changed, they have different perspectives of how it can be changed. In "This is Water" by Wallace explains how life is changed on a daily basis by the thoughts in our minds. In "Nobel Lecture" by Morrison explains how life is changed by language.

How the purpose & audience of "Nobel Lecture" and "This is Water" is reflected in how they are written

 In Toni Morrison`s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, “Nobel Lecture”, she conveys to her audience the power of language, and the ability it has to push people down. Her message is simple, as people we have the power to oppress others with our words, therefore we should exercise caution when speaking our thoughts aloud. In contrast to the simplicity of her message, the fashion in which her speech is written can seem complicated to some. As a reader I could tell that she was speaking to professors, scientists, authors- people who had a higher level of learning and could comprehend her extensive vocabulary, as well as connect with the messages she was relaying in a way a person who is just starting out in the world could never do. There is also a sense of formality that is very present in her writing; this is where “Nobel Lecture” and “This is Water” by David Foster Wallace differ from one another. “This is Water” was little less formal considering it was presented as a commencement speech for Kenyon College`s class of 2005. David Foster Wallace, had a younger audience of people, this is made obvious by the slightly casual and joking tone that starts off his speech. Due to the fact that the audiences these speeches were presented to were so different the content of them were also very different. Morrison`s speech contains a story that she uses as a tool to make her message clear to her audience, Wallace`s speech is more advice driven. The message he is trying to convey to his audience is more along the lines of “you may think your life is bad, but you have no idea how much worse someone else’s life could be in comparison to yours”, whereas Morrison speaks about the power of language. The styles of writing are completely different than one another’s because the audiences of each speaker are completely different from one another. Morrison has a crowd of extremely knowledgeable people whereas Wallace has a group of students who are fresh out of college and still have a lot of life to experience.

Compare and Contrast

After reading "This is Water" by David Wallace and Nobel Lecture by Toni Morrison I believe that both of the authors are trying to tell us to not live life by how the rest of the world is, careless and ruthless, but to live in such a way that you think of others feelings other than just yours yourself. I also believe that they are both trying to say that how we think and how we speak are a reflection of who we are as individuals. The differences these stories have are who they are trying to approach. I understood Wallace's passage a lot more than I did Morrison's because he was talking directly to my age group of people. Morrison's passage was a lot more difficult for me to understand because she was speaking to the people that attended the Nobel Peace Prize.

David Wallace starts out by stating how the real facts about the world are hard to face and we often look right past them. What we grow up automatically thinking is right tends to be what is actually wrong. We go about life without thinking before acting, putting ourselves always first before thinking about others, and that puts us in the hole of not doing the justly things we should. He explains that it is a natural pattern to be self centered because many tend to let their mind push them around. He goes on to explain that people don't live their life to complement yours but to only do what will make their life seem better. I mostly agree with Wallace because I know that self centeredness comes naturally for everybody but I also disagree because I don't believe that everybody is as self-centered as he portrays it. I do strongly agree with Wallace when he was stating that it is our choice to be self-centered because anybody that took the time and effort to think differently about the world and others could completely turn around their way of thinking.

Toni Morrison begins her speech by using the story of an old woman being approached by disrespectful younger boys and the woman returning with words of wisdom to teach the audience that sometimes you get an answer that you aren't expecting after asking a question and it ends up being the best answer. The old woman had a wise answer because she has not let the outside world affect her life unlike the younger boys have. I think that Morrison is trying to get across that communication with others and even ourselves is very important.

Compare and Contrast: This is Water and Nobel Lecture

The speeches This is Water and the Nobel Lecture are very different in their desired audience and their entire message. These speeches also have a similar goal in teaching you how to value thing that we take for granted such as our freedom of thought and even the language we speak. In This Is Water the speech starts off in a negative light explaining how we were meant to think and that it is human to be selfish and think that we are the center of everything. The speech then strays toward how we should see the world and how that everyone around us is probably feeling the same way and some have it way worse than us. The audience that this speech is targeting is you and was created to make us think that even though being self centered is a human default we can change how we think to have a completely new outlook on life. In the Nobel Lecture the central message is how language is a vital component of life and culture. The message is directed to the population or society as a whole. The speech teaches us how language is a link to our past and a bridge to the future. This teaches us as a society that we should just save language just for the sake of it but to learn how language is our culture and how it is our past. There is much to take away from both these speeches but one thing they have in common is that they teach us how to be a better individual. Before I read the Nobel Lecture I never understood how important language is and how I and mostly everyone I know take it for granted. This Is Water relates to me alot because I often catch myself thinking of people in my way and not how their lives might be more difficult than mine. This speech has taught me not to judge and to put myself into other peoples shoes. Both of these speeches are a great tool in making me think about myself, others and how to not take something as commonly used as language for granted.    

Compare and Contast

I started out with reading the "This is Water" essay and I was pleasantly surprised. I found the essay to be very relatable and it really put things into prospective for me. He made me realize that I myself and much more self centered then I ever believed. He talks about your self-default in a way that makes it seem bad and I found my self feeling guilty afterwards but I believe that a self- default is part of life. There isn't one person in this world that loves everything about everyone, and everyone has their own life problems and their own ways of dealing with them.  He also brings to point that we do without thought, going with what the world says is right, other than stoping to think what is actually the right and just thing to do.

When i started reading the "Noble Lecture" I found it to be very much more difficult to understan and i found my self reading paragraphs over and over again. This lecture was said in a way different then the first passage and it was much harder for me to comprehend the meaning. As I continued to read more in depth into the essay i realized that Morrison was using the bird and the old woman to represent language. Her reply to the young boys demonstrates how we need to use our words wisely because how you speak is a reflection of who you are. 

At first when i finished reading each passage I was very confused and could not find out how they were related in any way. After more thought and going over my notes I think I found in what way these two passages are alike and different. These two stories tie together by both pointing out that what you say and what you think is a reflection of you and how you live your life. They are different in one way by the generation that they are speaking to. For example it was hard for me to understand Morrisons passage because she was speaking to and older generation that attended the nobel peace prize, where as Wallace was speaking directly to my generation. 

"This Is Water" Disagreement

In the essay "This Is Water" Wallace says "It's the automatic, unconscious way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I'm operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the center of the world and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world's priorities". As a reader of this essay, I have to disagree with this statement because not everyone has the mentality that their needs rise above everyone else's and their needs should be the priority of the world even if they are having a frustrating or bad day.

Wallace gives a scenario about a negative, and selfish person's average day. I do not believe that it is hard-wired into everyone to be this way. I believe that it is a choice to think that your priorities are above everyone else's, you are more important than anyone else, and it doesn't matter what anyone else is going through. People that think and act in such a way are probably lonely and have never had to put the needs of others before their own.

Let us use a mom with three young children for example. She doesn’t have time to think about putting her needs before her children’s needs. All she is concerned about is making sure they are taken care of and happy. A women who tries to do as much as she can for them and often goes unappreciated, but to her it’s okay because she loves her children and wants them to have the best life possible.

Wallace states that “it’s hard, and will take mental effort” to not think everything is about you. I believe that it is not hard. I believe letting someone go ahead of you in the checkout line because they have way less groceries than you, or picking up the wet-floor sign that fell over is common sense, and should come natural to help because it is the right thing to do. If everyone had a negative attitude like the person in Wallace’s scenario, then the world would be a much more depressing place to live. Thankfully there are people where it comes natural to be selfless.

 

Disagreement "This is Water"

The start of “This is Water” by David Foster Wallace seems to imply that it will be a cute and witty commencement speech, but it is not.  One of the things I disagree with DFW on is that he wants more emphasis and thought to be put on the most obvious and apparent things in our everyday life, but if we take away our time away from thinking about the difficult and not so obvious things then they will overwhelm us, this is indeed why they are the difficult things in our life, because they demand to be thought about.

I also think that his ideas are completely preposterous when he says that we should alter or work harder to not make every decision based upon the fact that every single human being on this planet is designed to be completely self-centered.  What is wrong with that?  In this life, in YOUR life, there is only one chance you have to actually live, so everything you do is supposed to make your life better, that’s exactly why it’s your life.  Now don’t get me confused, I am not saying you need to be the most selfish, spoiled and non-loving person, but everything you do, you should do because you want to do it.  For example, some people say it is unselfish to help others, and in some ways it is, but in most it’s not.  It’s selfish because nobody helps someone and doesn’t expect to get something out of it.  Whether it is money, food, a hug, or the tingly feeling they get inside, they are always searching for something to receive, something they deem as equal or more valuable than their time that they just spent helping you.  After all, when asked about volunteering, haven’t you ever heard a little old lady say “I just love the way it makes me feel inside to help others”?  DFW might look at that statement and proclaim the actions she is doing shows that she is getting free of her default setting which is to be completely centered and not care about anybody else, but if you take a closer look you’ll notice that in that quote she mentions herself twice and the other person only once.  She may be helping others and bringing pleasure to them, but it is only so that it will bring pleasure to herself.

Compare and Contrast

The speech, "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace and the "Nobel Lecture" by Toni Morrison in some ways generate a common idea of truth but tend to have a different way of expressing their thoughts and acknowledging it to their specific audience. Wallace’s speech is definitely a straightforward and an amusing read from common experience. On the other hand, Morrison’s speech is from a story she had heard and a very intellectual read.

Both of the speeches approach the audience at the beginning with a story. In Wallace’s speech it is about the young fishes asking each other “what the hell is water?” Similarly, in Morrison’s speech it is about the old blind woman dealing with mockery by young people who disapprove of her wisdom due to her disability of  blindness. Although the speeches do show that reality sometimes maybe unknown to the eyes but that it exists in one form or another.

Along with similarities there are many differences between the two speeches. Wallace's speech is made for college students proceeding towards the real world by getting out of their protected shells. In his speech he presents the idea of self-centeredness which is something college students can relate with as well as with young children and adults. He then goes on to tell about the real life after college in the work force by using common experiences of tiring work, grocery shopping, and heavy traffic to convey his point about life. He suggests that life is not the imagined perfect life. Unlike Wallace’s speech, Morrison’s speech is made for people involved with the Nobel Prize. Her speech is based on a story she had heard of about an “old woman blind and wise.” In her speech when the old woman answers the question about whether the “bird is dead or alive” with such an unusual response for the young people, they go through all the possibilities that the old woman could have gone through to answer the question “correctly.” Through the act of silence and such a strange answer the woman conveys the message that the style of languages can affect a person either positively or negatively.

Compare and Contrast

      Both Toni Morrison's speech "Nobel Lecture", and David Foster Wallace's "This is Water" attempt and succeed at presenting a guide for improving a persons abilities. They try to expand a persons mind by presenting valid reasoning behind why they believe and feel what they believe and feel. They both emphasize on the effect oneself can have on another person. The main difference would most likely be the topic of which they decided to elaborate on. Wallace's piece is more engaging and has a lighter tone when speaking to his audience. He's more straightforward. Morrison on the other hand approaches her speech with a literary attitude. This could have to do with the fact that her speech was for accepting the Nobel Prize, and Wallace's for a commencement ceremony.
       Wallace's main point that he is trying to get across is rather simple: open your mind. He presents his topic of getting people to think by elaborating on a typical day of "actual adult life". Due to the fact that he's presenting a commencement speech it only seems fitting. He speaks about how everyone is actually pretty selfish. It's not something we'd all love to hear but it is truth. We live our lives in our mind and aren't always conscious of others thoughts or emotions. Even though he says he isn't trying to persuade his audience to agree with him on this subject, he does just that. His speech isn't based on moral or any other force that alters ones opinion of right and wrong, it's based on actual fact. Sure it's from his perspective but it's fact nonetheless. He uses a strategic amount of pathos and logos to appeal to his audience. He keeps them entertained with a relatable scenario that immediately locks people in, while also providing fact that is learned  simply through everyday life.
       Morrisons way of trying to expand her audiences mind is by tugging at their heart strings through pathos and ethos. She presents her stance on the importance of language in a rather cool and collected manner. She teaches the crowd she's standing in front of using the strategy of tugging at the pieces of knowledge they already know. Like Wallace, she simply brings to life  information that is plainly obvious. Through her ability to grasp their attention, she successfully delivers her message.
       What it all seems to boil down to is this: both speakers are amazing with their speaking capabilities. They succeed in getting there points across, yet they differ in style of delivery.

Toni Morrison and David Foster Wallace comparison

      As I first read through the renounced Nobel Lecture by Toni Morrison and the philosophical "This is Water" speech by David Foster Wallace I could not seem to find how these two pieces are related, but after some more in depth reading, I realized this lecture and speech are more similar than what meets the eye. Both men love the idea of self empowerment, the idea of controlling your future sparks their imagination and so they use such ideals in their works. Toni Morrison's folk story about the wise old lady revolved around the ideal of the power of language and how no one can take this power from you, where as David Foster was more so leaning towards the importance and understanding of every day life. While they both have a positive connotation and give their listeners/readers a bit of courage and motivation, their tool of choice to control said power is different. Toni was more verbose in his speech unlike David's more straight to the point aspect, either way both presenters want to influence realization onto their audience. They both were literary device heavy, Wallace loved his hyperboles and Morrison was more of a metaphor man, still both men caressed their work in such a way that their own words were the tools to spark our minds into creating our own words of encouragement. Both works, through the power of language, brought me to the conclusion that the power is in my hands; no matter the bland day in and day out of everyday life or the pressure of others trying to put me down, this is my life and I control it.

Comparing and Contrasting "Idea Readings"

When comparing Wallace and Morrison, their speeches have very similar topics. I believe the main subject of both speeches is to live life through experience rather than going through the motions. Wallace approached this through the example of three fish. The two young fish know they are fish because they see an older fish and he says, “Morning, boys, how's the water?” The young fish proceed forward and look to each other and say, “What the hell is water?” If a fish can recognize another fish then it should know that he or she is also a fish. The two young fish are completely unaware of the fact that they are swimming in water. Wallace intended for the older fish to ask the obvious question," how's the water...", to demonstrate how age, ultimately time, has helped the older fish understand what is going on around him. Now, Morrison also started her speech in a similar fashion. The elderly woman, who was blind and wise, was visited by some young people one day. They questioned whether she was truly wise or just plain lucky. The boys present a bird and simply ask whether it is dead or alive. The most common answer a blind elderly person would be make is simply, "I don't know." Given the elderly women's current view among the many people she has amazed with her skill, she beings to struggle with the response. She gives a response, that would otherwise make most people who have bought into her unbelievable skill leave, but the young rebels understand why she gave the answer. Then the elderly women acknowledges the fact the young boys understand her. In Morrison's speech the elderly women is the one who is, going through motions, or her usual routine. The young boy gave the advice and the elderly women listened. Wallace wrote his speech in way that is was able to connect with the audience and it was also more modern. Morrison wrote her speech to be more reflective about the way people interact and connect. I disagree with Morrison when she wrote that the old women reflected about how "language" influences our future. It doesn't matter how someone explains something to you. The way that you perceive it, is going to be the way that you perceive it. No one can force you to do anything you don't want to do. Ultimately it is up to you to utilize advice and information that you obtain from others. 

Two Wise Authors, One Serious Subject

If authors Toni Morrison and David Wallace were to have a conversation, I believe that they would sit and talk for hours on how society has degraded its moral standards and has jumped into another form of slavery without realizing. They would share thoughts on how the two different subjects they each addressed to their audiences in their speeches, are a severe cause of the immorality and lack of knowledge in people in this generation. Morrison would probably explain that the moral of her story was that although the blind lady in her story was a slave, she was more intellect than people nowadays, because back then there was no media to brainwash or distract a person. Her Noble Lecture was a story of a blind lady born into slavery and how she was wiser than an average person, despite her disability. She is confronted by kids making a mockery of her by asking if the bird which they have in their hands is alive? She can't see the bird, as she is blind of course, but she uses it to deliver a counterpunch to the oppressor by viewing the bird as a form of "language". "I don't know, she says. I don't know whether the bird you are holding is dead or alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands", in other words that they are responsible for picking up such horrible habit of oppressive language.
David Wallace would probably agree with Toni Morrison's views of how people have picked up oppressive language that has created a limit to our knowledge and creating violence through out the world. He would probably talk to Morrison about how his subject relates to hers. How people have been brain washed in this generation to be self centered and not only lack a voice, but awareness also. He would probably explain how he used a repetitive cadence in his speech by using self-conscious words such as my and me, so that the listener could notice how hypnotizing those words are and how that's our default way of thinking. Sometimes we get caught up in our own world and start to get a pessimistic view of life within time. I think that David Wallace would explain to her how the two fish in his story were too worried abut the things going on in their world that they don't make time to say answer a question from an older fish who had just passed by asking how the water was. Instead of answering the fish are dazed and confused trying to remember what water, knowing that its right in front of their face and without it they can't live. In other words people tend to forget to just calm down and breathe, instead we all get stressed out over little things in "my world" making us a hateful, self-centered, and pessimistic person when in reality there are other people going through worse  around the world. Morrison would probably agree on how we must stop having a self centered mindset as a society because we are only holding people back from knowledge in our future generations.

Disagreement "With This is Water"

I have to admit that at the start "This is Water" was amusing and relatable, as it went on I felt as if I was just being preached to. As he starts to describe the grocery store and that to an open-minded person it would be a "sacred" event, I felt as if I was being brought back to my elementary lessons of caring and compassion. I also don't agree with Wallace's stance on worship. My belief in God is not due to some "default setting" My default setting was to not even worry about religion. For a long while I didn't believe in anything and I was fine with that. So I felt that his stance was a little too presumptuous.

I also feel as if he has a sort of pessimist view on our "default setting" to be self centered. I do agree that people tend to be somewhat self-centered in everyday life. However I don't think that it is so bad that we are oblivious to other people's feelings. Wallace declares that because our feelings are so immediate and urgent that they are the only feelings that should matter. I believe that is not true, in my opinion the average person is sympathetic to others feelings and beliefs.

I do however agree with Wallace's concept of "real freedom". I also believe that he is speaking about equality, instead of freedom. He says that to have real freedom we must make sacrifices and be alert and disciplined. This is true when speaking of equality, and I believe in equality. Being aware of what is happening in our community and having the discipline to fight social injustices and stand up for what is right.

Compare and Contrast

In some ways Toni Morrison and David Foster Wallace convey their speech in a style that is similar, but also have their own unique way of expressing their thoughts and emotions towards a certain subject. For example, because Morrison is giving a speech after receiving her Nobel Peace Prize, her speech is more centered towards the community involved with the Nobel Peace Prize and anybody else interested in what Morrison had to say. On the other hand, Wallace’s speech is aimed more towards the college students who are graduating and are going through the commencement process.

                Because Wallace’s speech is intended for college students, he tends to relate more to them by referring to events that most college kids endure, like when he points out the feeling of being the center of the world and everything revolves around you (I, myself, have had that feeling once or twice). He then goes on to explain what life would be after college and defines the real meaning of “day in, day out” in a way that the college students will understand given the fact that they have not experienced “real life” yet. Wallace uses real life experiences relating to what life would be like after college and how those inconveniences of life are not always what they seem. Contrary to how Wallace approaches his audience, Morrison has a more calming vibe, but in a way where she can get her message across about how different styles of language can affect a person negatively and obscure their path to greatness. In her speech Morrison uses a story that she had heard before about a wise old lady who was blind, instead of a real life experience like Wallace.

                Morrison and Wallace are similar in the way they both find ways to engage their audience at the beginning. For example, Morrison uses the Story about the wise blind woman being the victim of ridicule by a couple of youngsters, and Wallace uses the small story about the two fishes not knowing what water is. Both speakers also talk about how each person’s perspective differs from one another and how one might think something about somebody but in reality it is the complete opposite of what they are thinking.

2 authors have sat down to dinner

Many look to Philosophers, Religious leaders, and various others for the answer to one of history’s most controversial questions; “What is the meaning of life?” Although there are multiple answers to this question, each seem to center around the same idea of “giving life a meaning.” David Wallace, author of This is Water and Toni Morrison, author of Nobel Lecture had different ways of approaching this dubious topic. If the two authors were to sit down to dinner with one another and read the other’s speech, i  believe one of the first things they might discuss would be the other’s view on the meaning of life.

While they each clarified what they believe the meaning of life may be, they also stated what the process of living life is to them and the simple difference between the two. Morrison would confidentially argue that, living is “doing language” and continuing to “do language” unconsciously allowing “it” to survive and progress naturally in order to improve, teach, and advance the human species further as generations progress and yesterdays children become tomorrows adults. While the meaning of life is simply to die. Wallace may counter this statement with his idea that life before death is “awareness of life”, whilst agreeing that death is inevitable, Wallace would continue on expressing that the meaning of life is to choose your life and live it with the conscious decision of how you will go on about living that day until waking up the next morning and consciously living again. 

This being said, the two authors would agree that how one lives their life is entirely their choice. There is no force controlling the outcome of any one person’s life. Morrison expressed this through the old blind woman’s (or was it an old man?) response to the unsuspecting children once they repeatedly challenged, “Is the bird I am holding living or dead?” The old woman’s response was simple, “it is in your hands.” Wallace would proceed the conversation by explaining the extraordinary power of choice and conscious decisions that could potentially manipulate the “boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life”, into a more positive and effective perspective of living day by day, thus ultimately “giving life a meaning.” 

Prompt 3

      The purpose and audience of these two speeches drastically impact the way they are written. In her “Nobel Lecture” Toni Morrison is addressing a crowd of distinguished scholars, diplomats and respected professors, all whom have worked many years to gain recognition in their respected fields of study. They’re all experienced in life, whereas Mr. Wallace’s commencement speech “This is Water” is directed towards a group of soon to be college graduates, whom are hours away from becoming “real” adults, in the “real” world, with “real” jobs. Toni Morrison’s speech centers on the story of an old, blind, and wise woman and the “lost” children seeking her knowledge. The speech’s tone comes off as stern, and at times feels like Morrison is lecturing her audience and telling them how they should live their life. Morrison places a lot of influence on the youths in the story depicting them as spending all their time searching for an answer through their elder. With her audience being more of an older generation it is not surprising that the speech is geared more towards the older generation and urges them to not just give younger generations the answers, but rather aid in the journey of them discovering life for themselves. “This is Water”, the commencement speech, takes a much more personable and laid back approach on the topic of life. Wallace, knowing his audience is younger than himself, uses a friendlier approach to the subject of life. Instead of lecturing the soon to be graduates, Wallace instead speaks of his own life experiences and his struggles of breaking from his “default settings”. He explains that as a society we’re hardwired to believe the worst, and think the worst, and be mad and worship all the wrong things because as Wallace points out “the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and the worship of self”. Wallace tells the students that they have a choice in how they live their life; it is in their hands if they choose positivity or negativity. Morrison infers ‘you must learn”, whereas Wallace admits, “you will learn”.

compare and contrast the two speeches assigned

In the two speeches assigned i saw them as point of views of each person in the story, the lady in Nobel Lecture was blind she had no way of telling what was in the hand of the young people, she went and told them that she was not sure if the bird was alive or dead all she knew was the bird was in their hands, she went off of what she knew and gave them a response she didn't over think anything she went off her "view" she used her wisdom and knew that they either found the bird dead and like how it was or if it was alive it could be dead soon. The man in This is Water has a whole different view at first he starts off with how he has it tough and he is frustrated and how he can't stand it when he is stuck in grocery lines and traffic but then near the end he changes his view he goes on to talk about how the reason why someone cuts you off in traffic could be because their kid or passenger is sick or injured or how the people in line at the grocery store could be in the same mood your in and not want to be standing in line as well and how everything is in a sense not as it seems. We quickly judge everything and make fun of people and in the end we may not see the bigger picture it doesn't happen every time but it will happen every now and then and it inevitable. The differences i see are few they are both about thinking and how we see things but its in who its directed towards, the lady is directing it to kids in the story while in real life it can be directed towards anyone it's not a specific group, the other speech seems to be directed towards hard working people and seniors, the lady also talks about how life is in a sense based around language and how without it we are basically nothing. These speeches told a lot about how we should think before we speak and how there can always be a bigger picture.

Compare and Contrast

Williams and Morrison's speeches both are about the same theme; thinking. Thinking is defined as the capability to reason, the ability to form thoughts, and the ability to form opinions. Williams and Morrison both indirectly show the definition of thinking throughout their speeches. Another similarity is that they both value thinking in a way that most people don't. They both see deeper into basic thoughts, and more importantly value how other's peoples thoughts show what kind of perspective they have in life. I personally think that thinking is a big part of our lives. If we do not think then there is no meaning to anything. If we do not go through good and bad experiences then we do not have character. Finding the true meaning behind simple thoughts will open up a new door, and new perspective on how we see things. These doors will sometimes completely change our perspective on everything there is to life.

The way both of these speeches are different is that Williams talks about the specifics of thinking, and what it actually means to think. He expresses hoe important thinking is to our lives. Morrison talks about how multiple people have different perspectives. She also talks about how thinking is a measurement of our lives.

“Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think.
It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.
Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed.” Williams starts off with a statement, and then proceeds to go into depth of this statement. He says that what you experience in life greatly affects the way you will think. Which results in shaping your true character. I believe that he thinks that if we do not find a true meaning of what we live for, then we just wasted our lives thinking useless thoughts.

"We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives." Obviously we all have different views on what the meaning of life is, but I believe that Morrison's view on life is how you live in life, not how long you live. She believes that language makes life more than meets the eye. The way your thoughts are expressed in words is the unit of measurement in our lives.

Compare and Contrast

When I read both speeches I noticed one thing in particular that stood out to me and that was the differences in the tone of each speech. David Foster Wallace gave his speech to a graduating class from Kenyon College and Toni Morrison gave hers in 1993 when she won the Nobel Prize in Literature. I feel both of these works served as a sort of warning to their audiences.
 Wallace has a light hearted aspect when he describes a terrible trip to a grocery store after a long tiresome day at work followed by sluggish traffic. His descriptions of the people and the normal attitude about them made me chuckle at times because I have been there myself. When he points out that other people in our lives are experiencing a rough day, I realized that I slumped into the self centered thought he describes. This self centered thought process of humans can lead people to believe that the only reasons others are around is to get in their way and interfere with their agenda. He says it's really a choice we make to either think in a "default-setting" manner or think outside of yourself and continue to grow.
In Morrison's speech her audience is not a group of students leaving college into the world for the first time. She's speaking to other authors and educators. I feel as if her speech was colder in nature. She speaks of language as the measure of our human lives. Without language our only purpose is to die such as the bird she refers to in the young boys hands. The use of oppressive, sexist, and racist language has only one purpose in her eyes and that is to oppress the language and expression of others. She says that not only is she to blame for the demise of language but everyone who uses it.
Both speakers seemingly warn their audiences about the self centered way of thinking. Not thinking of others with your actions. Wallace uses one's self as an example of oppressing knowledge and Morrison uses the power of others as her example of knowledge not being furthered.

Compare & Contrast

Morrison and Wallace discuss how we should live our life and what should be left in our wake. Although they differ in ways like the metaphor of life and what kind of perception we should have in our lives.

A negative tone is something both authors have in common. Wallace conveys this by saying that we are all self-centered, therefore everyone around us is wrong and “just in my way”. The boys from the Nobel Price lecture are portrayed as nuisances that waste time of the old woman. This hostility the authors put into the text allows readers to grasp that we take for granted the community and peers around us. Thus limiting ourselves to one lens or blindness. “This is water, this is water”, Wallace begins the piece with two fish swimming passed and older fish asking “what the hell is water”. This metaphor that he used is a reminder showing that that we often get caught up in the same day to day routine of life that we forget to realize what if right in front of us, what we have and that we spend too much time not closely paying attention to the things around us. The bird is what Morrison uses to convey life; this thing that has two options living or dead. And expressed that no matter what state the bird is in, it was created that way by our doing, “it is in your hands”. Breaking the norm, seeing more than what’s meets the eye, these are things both authors what the readers to do. Not to merely exist nor live life through only one lens, but taking the time to stop for a second step out to the daily routine and look at your surroundings in a different way.

                When our lives should count is when differences arise between the authors. Wallace believes that our lives should be all about the now. That we should challenge ourselves to be more than the walking dead, than the norm to the conformity of the brain and everyone else roaming around on default, because this this is the time to experience what’s waiting right in front of us to discover in a different and new way. “We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do Language. That may be the measure of our lives” Morrison believes that dying is this event that happens and that living is just the thing before it, but the mark and language we leave behind is what really counts. Leaving behind our own individual marking on the world allows others to grow and learn from our lives. Valuing the present or the future to the next generation is where they vary.

Compare and Contrast

In the eyes of many, everyday life can be a ordinary sequence of events in which many are trapped in and forced to withstand this uninspiring lifestyle. In "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace and the "Nobel Lecture" by Toni Morrison both authors combat this view of life. Wallace and Morrison seem to be challenging that life should consist of more than what's seen on the surface. Although both have this similarity, they differ in the tool they think should be used in order to change the interpretation many have on life.

Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" incorporates a story of a blind wise woman who is asked by teenagers "Is the bird I am holding living or dead?" Although this situation seems straight-forward, Morrison provides different possibilities as to how this situation can be interpreted. Is the bird actually there and tangible or is it a metaphor for a complex question that requires a complex answer? Or are the teenagers there to mock the elderly woman? There could be many possibilities of who, what, when where, why and how this question is asked but language is the skeleton of all possibilities. This interpretation is largely based on language and how it can affect our views as well as our choices. 

Wallace provides a relatable story explaining the mindset of humans, how we have the instinct to view life selfishly and negatively. Wallace's solution to the human "default setting" is to free our mind from the unconscious thinking. Living life "day in, day out" can be as torturous or as delightful as we choose it to be. Wallace states that the "real freedom" of life is possessing altruism and empathy for others, humans must filter what is significant in life. Humans are left with their own choice to view life in a positive light or a negative light. 

Both Morrison and Wallace present the idea that we are left with choices in life. The authors have different viewpoints of how life is changed. Wallace explains life is changed by the mind's thoughts, while Morrison explains life is changed by language. Nevertheless both authors describe life as being flexible to change, the difficult task is how one will change life.

Compare & Contrast (Link at end)

  Both Wallace and Morrison emphasize on the two paths that we as a society can take and how immense the power of choice is.

  In David Foster Wallace's "This Is Water", Wallace emphasizes on our "default setting" in which the universe and all it entails revolves around me, myself, and I. With this mindset, everything bad is happening to only me and everyone else is just in my way. However, Wallace opens up the door of choice by attempting to provide insight on how situations may affect others. With this insight, we can make assumptions as to why some things are the way they are, and although these assumptions might not always be true they can allow us to perceive situations as less shitty than what our "default setting" allows us. This insight gives us the power of freedom, the power of choice, and the power of awareness rather than cruise control through life miserably.

  In Toni Morrison's "Nobel Lecture", Morrison focuses on the choice that we, as the young people of the world, have the power to let language live or die. She illustrates this choice with the story of children holding a bird and asking an old blind woman whether it is living or dead. The bird symbolizes language and the children symbolize the young people of the world. Whether the bird is alive or dead we are responsible for it. If it alive we can choose to maintain it and nurture it, or we can choose to kill it. If the bird is already dead we can preserve what is left, or we can choose to leave it how it is and let it wither away.

  Both speeches are similar in the fact that they offer us choices that can greatly impact society and how we live our separate lives. However, they are different in the aspect of how we can make those choices. Wallace's speech focuses on the choices we can make in every day life. Meanwhile, Morrison's speech emphasizes on language and whether we will choose to preserve it or not.

   

Also here is a good video that illustrates "This Is Water" pretty well. 

  

  

Compare and Contrast

There is a common focus in "This is Water" and Morrisons Noble Speech. This focus is ones perspective and their way of seeing the world, but through different ways. For Wallace in "This is Water" ones perspective is created through thought and what a person thinks, but for Morrison in her Nobel Speech a persons perspective of the world is created through language and communication. 

In Wallaces essay, "This is Water" he opens with a story of two young fish swimming and ask each other, "what the hell is water?" (page 1). He then brings up the point that the most important realities are the hardest to notice and talk about. Leading to how peoples minds interpret the world around them and how they believe they are the center of the world. Wallace argues that this is natural for us as people and that we are hardwired this way at birth. Wallace emphasizes that we as people tend to think in a way that puts us at the center of the universe, like the world would end if our needs weren't met. This way of thinking is effortless which is why people tend to do it more than to be selfless and to think about others needs as well as our own. 

Morrisons Nobel Speech tells us that our perspective of the world around us is influenced by language. In the story the boys ask the elderly blind lady if the bird they were holding was dead or alive. Of course the blind woman could not tell if the bird was dead or alive because of her disabilities. But this question could be interpreted in several different ways depending on the situation, because of this language affects the way we view things in the world and how we choose to live as well. 

Both Wallace and Morrison focus on the idea of our choices in life. Although both authors focus on this idea they're perspectives are different because of the way interpretations are made. Wallace emphasizes on how are thoughts changed our views of life while Morrison explains how through language our views on life will be portrayed in different ways. Both authors see that life is exposed to all sorts of change and how we as people have the power to decide how we want to change or lives.