As strange as this sounds, I had an easier time presenting the  rather than the personal speech, but for very simple reasons. First off, I don’t like holding papers or cards in my hands when I speak. I feel as though I have to rely on it, to get me from point to point. I end up looking down at it too much. Even though I could have freely talked about my topic quite easily, I overused my index card to keep structure and organization. Also, I realized that a speech will be much more unorganized and jumbled if you do not practice. This is true for me at least. I didn’t practice a whole lot, thinking that it wouldn’t be necessary and I will be able to guide myself through the speech. However, I was wrong. I stuttered and got my thoughts mixed up at some points. My monologue speech was very clean because I practiced it over and over, making sure I knew exactly what to say and how to say it. Like I said, I believe I stuttered far too much and was not completely satisfied with my speech. I looked down at the card too much and did not transition to new thoughts effectively. I want to become accustomed to not relying on the index card, and realize all it takes is a little practice. I noticed that other speeches that gave vivid detail in which I could visualize the scenario were the ones that I played such close attention to.  Also, dramatic stories held my attention well. Speeches that were less personal, and more factual lost my attention quickly.  Also speeches that were monotone and lacking delivery were hard to listen to.  However, most of the speeches in our class did a pretty decent job of avoiding this, and were pretty interesting. And I know this picture is an extremely lame picture but basically it just symbolizes that practice makes perfect, and if you want your speech to come out effectively you have to know what you’re saying.   

Jimmy Marshall

Frannie Torres

The theatrical monologue and the personal speech differed in many ways. First, the theatrical monologue was a bit shorter. The personal speech was also extemporaneous and  felt more natural for me to say, in contrast to the theatrical monologue which had to be said word-for-word. The personal speech also depended on an outline, and allowed for flexibility. Therefore, I found that there was more room for improvisation during the personal speech. This advantage was not as present during the monologue where if you forgot a certain word, your whole flow of speaking would be thrown off.

I personally was not satisfied with my speech, both before and after watching the video. I know that I need to work more on my volume and getting over my obvious stage fright. I now know that I should just start my speech with the “go-getter”, rather than just first introducing the topic of my speech. I also now know that I need to work more on organizing the structure of my speeches.

The qualities of my classmates’ speeches that really got my attention were usually the topics themselves. Finding the topic during the introduction of their speeches as interesting definitely made the rest of the speech more engaging. Humor also got my attention. The emotional aspect of some of the speeches also really got to me, as I tend to be very sensitive on certain issues. The qualities of other speeches that made it hard to stay engaged were usually when a speech being said too fast or too slow. It was hard to stay engaged if the speaker had no emotion in his or her voice, and if his or her tone was monotonous the whole way through.

The image I included shows a laughing audience. They are clearly an audience that is engaged through the use of humor.

After watching the recorded video of my personal speech, I thought there were many things I could improve on. First, is my posture, I thought my posture could’ve been firmer and I could have “owned” the space. I also think I should’ve used more hand gestures. From time to time, I would sway back and forth which seemed like a distraction. I mostly believe I could’ve done better with my physical delivery. However, I did like the inflection in my voice and my use of emotions. I also maintained a lot of eye contact with the audience. I think this speech was harder than the monologue. Memorizing the monologue was easy and it was fun because you were acting as someone else. This speech wasn’t hard because it’s your own specific experience. The only difficult part I found was putting your experience in order and then maintaining that order throughout the speech. When you usually talk about your personal experience to someone else you never really say it in a orderly fashion. In my fellow classmates’ speeches, I think the first sentence was what really grabbed me. If their attention getter was good, it automatically wanted me to continue paying attention. If they had very good vocal variety and they made use of their emotions it also drew me in. It was difficult to pay attention to someone who talked very slow or talked about one specific thing for a long time. But it was also difficult to understand people who were talking fast. Otherwise, I really think everyone in the class did a really good job. A lot of them weren’t too dependent on their notes which I found very impressing. The image I attached shows a man giving a speech, but his physical delivery is very good. Even though he stands behind a podium, he uses hand gestures.

Salma Haque 

Blog posts should be between 250-400 words

In this post, reflect on what you have learned so far about public presentations through the monologue assignment and the personal speech assignment.

• What was different about your experience of presenting these two assignments (aside from the obvious difference that one was your own words and one was not)?
• Having watched the video of your personal speech, what new information did the video give you about how your speech went?  What were you satisfied with about your own presentation, and what would you like to improve?
• What qualities (related to both content and delivery) in your classmates’ personal speeches made you really want to listen?  What qualities made it hard to stay engaged?
• Include an image (photo or otherwise) somewhere in your post to reinforce one of your points.  Explain how this image relates to the point you’re making.

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

Roza Dul

Jeff Daniels could most likely be associated with his role of Harry in Dumb and Dumber back in the 90’s with Jim Carrey. Now, years later and starring as a TV anchor named Will McAvoy in the political drama Newsroom, he delivers a very interesting speech during a debate answering a question of what makes America the greatest country in the world. His answer, shocking the audience, is that it isn’t anymore, but that it could be. He immediately captures the interest of the audience by his insult of the girl asking the question. At that point everyone is ready to slaughter him, but just then he says that America in fact was the greatest country in the world, “…we didn’t scare so easy. We were able to be all these things, and to do all these things, because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered.” The facts that he presented and the description of American citizens from the past inspires the whole room to listen. The audience changes from outraged to interested and he manages to inspire everyone to the point of taking out their cellphones and taking a video of him speaking.

Even though at first he keeps avoiding the question, he later lays out an impromptu shock speech that through his delivery leaves the audience amazed. He tells the audience of all the negative things, but then reminds them of all the good, and the fact that we have the ability to change them. He definitely has a powerful impact on the audience in a sense that he shakes them up. He tackles the question from the other end, and says what people don’t really want to hear, but deep down realize is the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6klClwZVHfE

Valerie Auciello

Ross Capicchioni’s story is one of inspiration and admiration. At the age of just 17, he was gunned down in cold blood. The shooter was a boy two years younger than Ross; the act of violence was part of a gang initiation. Ross was left to die, struggling to find the power to keep conscious and not submit to the pain. Eventually, he was taken back to a hospital where he was pronounced dead on the scene. However, one doctor decided to keep fighting, the same decision Ross made when he initially was shot. Don’t give up. Days later, he awoke and was able to come home.

As compelling as Ross’s story is, the way in which he tells it is what really draws the audience in. As Ross narrates his story from the viewpoint of a 17 year old, he speaks as if he is conversing rather than lecturing. He may not be delivering a traditional speech, but the impact is still as powerful. Ross gains credibility from the audience by the way in which he speaks. He has a sincere and genuine tone throughout this story. Additionally, he makes use of inflection in voice and pauses to emphasize certain focal points. I believe that in this class, we should strive to mimic the fluidity of speech and ways in which Ross narrates his story. As a member of the audience, I felt invested in what he was saying and wanted to continue listening. Our peers are roughly the same age as Ross, so we should   try to use his same techniques in our speeches in order to keep our audience equally as intrigued in what we are arguing.

In the conclusion of Ross’s story, he remarks, “this is my world.” He made the decision not to let the rest of his life be determined by his prior misfortune. This is our world. How will you influence it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0MpZpW8P2Y

In the beginning of this speech, Kevin Rudd (politician) responds to a comment on why he chose to ‘flip flop’ on issues such as marriage equality. His response is excellent; thought out, and thoroughly addresses his view on same sex marriage. However, at 2:00, he sets up a trap towards the pastor that receives such a profound response from the audience, and I believe this is what made his speech so incredible and worthy of putting up here. Rudd asks the pastor why he believes everyone shouldn’t have the same right to get married, to which he simply responds ‘I believe in what the Bible says, and the Bible defines marriage between a man and a woman.’ Rudd then says that the Bible also says that slavery is a natural act—and following this statement, the audience explodes with applause and cheering. This point in the speech made Kevin Rudd’s argument overpower whatever the pastor was saying, and he quite simply looked pretty foolish standing up there and staring Rudd down.
I believe that Rudd’s speech was so incredibly moving not only because of the pure sass he let out at the Bible comment, but because it was quite obvious that he did not agree with what the pastor was saying one bit. However, throughout the entire speech, he remained respectful and composed towards the man, and made no direct attacks towards him. Instead, he used pure facts to prove exactly why the pastor’s thinking was too outdated. I think a lot of politicians make this mistake—they are afraid to change their opinions in fear of being dubbed a ‘flopper’ but in doing so, they keep outdated opinions that—with time—people start to disagree with. Part of what makes this speech so powerful is also the fact that Kevin Rudd was not afraid to admit that what he originally thought was wrong. He admitted he was wrong. For a politician to admit that they are wrong makes them so much more relatable, and brings a sort of ‘human’ aspect to them, that most of their colleagues don’t have. And as a public speaker, Kevin Rudd immediately gained a lot of credibility with his audience.

-Amba Jagnarine

               Over the summer, I got a job as a telemarketer. A telemarketer is basically a person who is attempting to sell, or market, something over the phone. Unless you’re really good at communicating, there’s a very steep learning curve that comes with the job. And unfortunately, I’m not good at communicating.  But I stuck with it, it was my first real job and I wanted to get good at it.

                During my time as a telemarketer, I noticed the different methods my co-workers used over the phone. One established rapport with the people he was calling; he turned a random person into a friend by speaking within mutual topics. Another would basically hype up the people he called into listening (if you’ve seen Boiler Room, you know what I mean.). What I concluded is that, no matter their style, they’ve been doing this long enough so that communication to them is second-nature, like holding a fork. It’s like any other skill; you start off awkwardly with the fork, trying different poses until it feels comfortable. And eventually, you don’t even have to think about it, you just pick up the fork and eat.

                The only thing that stands between being a stuttering and awkward speaker and the next contestant on “Shark Tank” is time. Like anything from sports to studying, it all depends on how fast you’re able to learn. Usually, I’m a pretty quick learner. But in this particular situation, I seriously went off course. The fact that this particular job only pays on commission, and I was basically allowed to come in whenever I wanted, appealed to the inner slacker in me. As a result, I didn’t get that good. My communication skills somewhat improved, but that’s about it.

                I want to apply the things we learn in class to my job and vice versa. And maybe, just maybe, I’ll one day become a good telemarketer.

Alex Abramov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoWiV6Q8qME

Shaquile King

Dr. Cornel West’s speech at the Oxford Union was a captivating and powerful speech. At the meeting his main point was to talk about the Occupy Wall street movement and the injustice found in our American justice system. The manner in which the speech was given was very interesting to me because of the energy Dr. West had and the passion he had for the topic.  One of the first things you’ll notice about the speaker is he engages the audience with his body language. Dr. West throughout his entire presentation frequently uses hand gestures, poses, and other facial gestures to keep the audience interested and focused on what he has to say. In addition he uses his eyes many times to help display certain emotions to the audience.

In addition to his body language Cornel West also has an interesting way of orally presenting his words. His constant use of figurative language and change in tone aids him in setting certain moods. An example of this is when he talks about President Barack Obama’s war activities at the 6:50-7:14 mark. Before he comes to his statement about the president he changes his posture and tone which in a way alerted the audience that he was getting ready to share his main point about the president on the subject. He pauses and calls the President, “A war criminal with a Nobel peace prize.” The statement that Dr. West made was a very controversial statement, but it helped him to maintain the audience’s attention and interest in the speech.

Last but not least Dr. West related to his audience. In the room there were many people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds. He used this to expand his discussion about Injustice in America to Global injustice. While doing this he gave facts and examples about other places in the world and how it related to his point which helped to gain both the audiences sympathy and respect for the Occupy Wall street movement. Through the use of his body language, wording and ability to relate to the audience Dr. West gained applaud and a favorable reaction from the crowd. The speech simply showed that an audience can be greatly influenced by the way a speech is presented to them.