Here I sit, intrigued at the fact that
I will actually post this before sundown and pondering why on Earth
did our teacher ask us to a simple literary analysis of such a...
speech... that only goes to how does this guy develop his thesis and
how does that thesis relate to the question “How can literature
develop empathy and emotional intelligence?” Although personally to
me it seems that the speech is so good and blunt that there isn't
really a need to explain the concept(s) exposed. So on with the
typical English stuff:
He starts off his speech with a
humorous and rather unlikely metaphor that really captures the
audiences attention. He then explains what the metaphor means and
then goes on to explain what it really means. He talks about the
whole routine. About how people just get up, go to their difficult
jobs. Work. Get stressed. Work. Get back home. “Unwind.” Then go
sleep to do it all over again. Then he goes into what happens when
you run out of food. And well, “you have to drive to the
supermarket.” And then suffer like I think pretty much everyone
does while trying to get all you need and then pay (the queues..!).
And etc etc. So in this first part he goes on using a simple
description of this deadly routine and uses a simple form of it, so
that everyone can relate. He goes on it in a very sulky and
depressing tone so that people really get the idea that the routine
is depressing and annoying.
Then he takes a tone shift as soon as
he says “But that is not the point.” He goes on to explain how
it's all about choice. Making emphasis on the whole “choice”
part. He talks about how it's our default setting to think that
everything revolves around us and uses the example that maybe
everyone else around us that is stressing us out is just as equally
stressed. Basically saying in a very long way that life isn't as
depressing as we see it all the time in our default setting, but that
it's up to us to make it seem depressing.
He finally wraps it up by saying that
even though the speech isn't inspiring like homecoming speeches tend
to be, it is a lesson to be assimilated by anyone. The end, pretty
much... Shout outs to the people that made the video above for
recognizing these three sections of the speech.
Now then, how does this relate to the
inquiry question? Well simple. When we read we get to consider
perspectives of people different to us. We get to consciously go
through the thought process of other people. Do that in real life and
well, you've made the conscious choice to not perceive life as the
monotonous depressing routine it might be. In other words, literature
consists of doing precisely what this guy says it's good to do in his
speech. Isn't that nice?
On a side note, I'll just leave one of
the things I've learned from a friend. A thing that in my opinion
counters the whole depressing atmosphere of the video.
Keep things interesting.
