I'll Take the Casket

Today, I had to complete an exercise that sent my heart pounding and made my hands shake. We had to do a public speaking exercise. Now, I am not the only one who hates public speaking. In fact, it is the number one fear in America. It is even more feared than death. Basically, the average person would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy.
So, how did I do? I did not use a single filler. Not a single um or so, like floated from my lips. I spoke clearly and tried not to speak too fast. I did speed up in the middle, but I think I slowed it down to a tolerable pace.
I compared my object to a candle and described it as wax and color, items that the audience definately knew of. I didn't speak over their heads, but I don't think I dumbed it down too much either.
As for my body language, that's a completely new category. I am certaintly one to gestulate. Whether it is at home on my couch or in front of a room of people, my hands talk with me. Although hand gestures can sometimes actually make an audience feel at ease, my hand gestures are a bit excesive and can therefore be a distraction. My body language suggests relaxed, but I do fidget and shift side to side. Even though I constantly shift my weight, I do stick to my invisible box. I was definately inside the box. The one thing I liked is that I made eye contact. Even if I looked at my talking points, my eyes immediatly came back up. I did not look at the floor. I did not stare at one spot on the wall. I did not stare Emily down to avoid eye contact with others. I looked around.
I did have notes for my presentation, but I do not feel I used them excessively. They only time my notes gave me pause was when I looked for the creators' names.
Towards the end, I began to fear I'd run out of things to say. I did have the last resort of naming colors in a desperate attempt to fill time if need be.
Overall, I don't think I was boring. I believe the speech was effective, and I spoke in a way the audience could understand.
If I could go back in time, I would use less hand gestures, I would use a visual, and I would give a greater detailed description of the product. I could go into how evolved and different the crayon had become. I could have given the crayon to everyone in the audience to try. I could have been more engaging.
In the end, I hate public speaking. There's a reason I like email and staying in my seat. However, I am not the only one.

Gamers and Stories

Everyone plays video games. Well, maybe not everyone, but many people do. We have all picked up a controller whether it was to play another round of COD or to play the newest first person shooter. we have all played some type of game.
Today's geeks are gamers. The world of video games has come far from PacMan to entire story lines that play out like a movie. The amazing thing about today's games, they allow the gamer to control the story.
Games have advanced to the point where the gamer controls the story. You, the player, can now make choices and advance the plot. If you travel to that island, the plot curves one way. If you shoot that character in the head, another plot option closes.
Today's games now allow the gamer to both create the story while experiencing it at the same time.

What You See Is What You Get.

Many movies have a dedicated following of fans. However, often the most popular movies began in writing. They began as books. Many books are taken off of the page and turned into images on the screen for viewers everywhere to see. Examples such as Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings can be used to demonstrate how a popular book franchise can turn into a box office hit overnight.

Twilight was published some time before it got popular, and that popularity of the pages turned into a devoted fanbase for the movies. Harry Potter books were released before the movies, and it wasn't unusual for fiction fans to line up around the block waiting for the release of the newest book.

However, often times many fans of the book are disappointed by what they see on the screen. This is because the books are (almost) always better than the film. Movies normally have a time limit, and they can only incorporate so much detail before the audience gets restless.

Recently, movies have become longer in order to stick to the book, and audiences have become more patient to sit in their seats. This still has not rectified the situation where the books are better. Books have more detail, more description, and they take the reader with them into the story. Movies have the visual aid, but they can't give as much detail or explain what's going on in that characters head as well as the written word.

This does not mean you should read the books and boycott the movies. It mean appreciate the books first, and take the movies for what they are.

Wanna buy a box?

When you have a product, you do your best to sell it. You target a buyer and decide on your approach. This is exactly what is done in the making of commercials and in the ads you see in magazines. The pictures, the language, and the tone used to sell the products are all carefully analyzed and selected.

Believe it or not, Girl Scouts do this when selling cookies. Whether it's at a booth or in school or even over the phone, Girl Scouts are trained to sell. We all have to take a 'cookie training' class, and we learn how to sell. Younger girls learn through role playing sales, and older girls review good sales tactics. We recognize that the words we use and the way we phrase or question can help attract or deter buyers.

For example, we usually avoid saying "Wanna buy a box?" at cookie booths. If people aren't looking at you, they don't know what your selling. If you say it in a dejected tone that says 'I'm so very cold , and I don't want to be here,' then sales will not be great.

However, if you phrase the question as, 'would you like to buy a box of Girl Scout cookies?' then people tend to listen. This subtle change in language is enough to make the difference between a sale and someone walking away.

This is why advertisers spend so much time on a 7 second commercial. You have to pick the correct word, while being weary of the connotations associated with that word, as well as ensure you are forming phrases that inspire the image of the product you wish to sell.

When you have a product, you want to sell it. In order to sell, you must ensure you use the proper language when advertising that product.

Substance Vs. Popularity

As much as I love reading, there are some books that you just don't want to force yourself through. There's always that kid in English class who asks, "Why do we have to read this? What's the point?" At the end of that long collection of words, there is a point. I promise. We aren't reading "Twilight" in class for a reason. We don't discuss Edward, Jacob, and Bella's love triangle after vocabulary because it simply isn't important. True, "Twilight" is a very popular franchise, but that doesn't make it relevant or good reading material. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good.

Instead, we read books of relevance and that are actually well written. Yes, "The Odyssey" looks daunting at first, but it is a good book. Books are extremely influential, and they can reflect a lot about the culture or ideas behind them. For example, there is a reason the Bible is one of the top-selling books in the nation. It is certainly not as hip as Twilight, but it is considered relevant for a reason. It represents an entire movement of religion.Whether you agree with the ideas behind the cover or not, you now what the Bible is.

So although we may groan and complain when we get a required reading list, there is a purpose behind those pages that seem to be forced on us. For the sake of knowledge and understanding what a good book is, we read. We suffer through to the end, and are rewarded with reading something of with substance, unlike "Twilight".

It isn't nice to have the bad habit of floccinaucinihilipilification.

"If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur."

-Doug Larson.

 

The English language makes no sense. Today, we have over a million words, and our language continues to grow. We create this language out of 26 letters of the alphabet; these handful of letters that we learn in kindergarden are used to make up words such as floccinaucinihilipilification. Yes, that is a real word. Google it if you don't believe me. We have this incredibly long word made up of 28 letters to describe the simple act of belittling other's achivements and estimating things as worthless. What about the fear of long words? Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. You know there is a phsychologist somewhere getting a kick out of that. Or what about a galimaufrey? A tall awkward fellow, a hog's snout, or and individual who owns far too many baubles for his own good, a galimaufrey is not a word to forget. Do you know any of these words? I certaintly have trouble pronouncing them, let alone defining them!

 

The thing that strikes me is the thought that Shakespeare's Old English only had about 40,000 words. He wrote timeless classics that high school students suffer through using a fraction of the words we have today. What would he have done with words such as mignardise (gentleness) or Chiengora (yarn weaved from dog hair) at his disposal? Would his works be even better and more defined if he had more words at his disposal? Or would "Hamlet" have suffered if Shakespeare had terms such as spamalytics (computer scientists use this term to investigate spam emails)?

 

Shakespeare's greatness was in the language he used. He created words when his language wasn't enough. If he'd had all of these words, his true genius would not have been challenged. In fact, his greatest works might have even suffered from a broader spectrum of language. Less is more; this phrase is said for a reason. Although we work with 26 letters, we create combinations that can make your head spin; and that's before you throw in words from other languages.

Shakespeare's genius is in the simplicity of the language he worked with. Had he been dealing with the million or so words we have today, I doubt he would have had the chance to shine and manipulate language the way he did. Had Shakespeare's language been as 'developed' as our langauge, we might have nothing to suffer through in English class.