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.