I Disagree with David Wallace

I disagree with David Wallace's view that we as people are only concerned with their own existence. There are many people who live their lives predominately to serve others. David Wallace seems to insinuate that that we only do these things to enrich our own lives so that we feel better about ourselves. Of course people (including myself) have done this but there’s no way that you can generalize every one based ln the actions of groups of people, no matter how large. I feel that thinking of one’s self before others is necessary at times, and shouldn’t be thought of as a selfish action. Living for others is not always healthy. Although it is nice and may help other people, it is very beneficial to keep your own personal interests in mind. Mostly due to the fact that you are the only person you can truly depend on to make you happy. No matter how close you are to others you can’t always depend on them to have your interest in mind. They can break of and be concerned with other things at any time. Which leads back to David Wallace’s point that people will really only be concerned with themselves when it comes down to it

Compare and Contrast

The “This is Water” speech by David Wallace and the “Nobel Lecture” by Toni Morrison both aim to get their audience members thinking. Their message is originality is power, that thinking differently is a true sign of intelligence. When the “Nobel Lecture” and “This is Water” speech are compared side by side they are some noticeable differences. For instance, the “Nobel Lecture” was given by a female, black woman in recognition for winning the nobel prize in literature. Morrison’s gender and race greatly influenced her speech, as one can clearly see in third paragraph-the main character is an old, blind, female, black slave. It can be noted that Morrison is older than Wallace and just as Morrison stated in her speech that older is wiser. Morrison has lived longer in the real world compared to Wallace, who is just graduating from a university. In Wallace’s speech he shares how in the “real world” many people fall into the same daily routine of thinking and that taking a step back and viewing things from a different angle is important. Wallace’s speech is clear cut and easy to understand, whereas Morrison’s speech is much more difficult to follow, but allows more room for interpretation. My interpretation of Morrison’s speech is that everyone in the world has the power to be someone, do something, and say something. Language is knowledge and knowledge is power. Ultimately, both the “This is Water” speech and the “Nobel Lecture” teaches the audience to think for themselves and to be original.   

Prompt #3

The speech written by Wallace is, as mentioned, a commencement speech. Therefore, the language has been dialed down so that the graduates will follow along with the speech. He makes the speech relatable to all individuals attending because we do as humans have our bad days. The speech flows nicely and is comprehended by the audience because it captivates you as the reader. The speech allows the audience to reflect on their own personal bad days and therefore, there is a clear connection between Wallace and the reader. Morrison conveys her story quite differently. She is receiving an award based on literature so her choice of diction is of a higher caliber.  Her thoughts and viewpoints about literature are connected within a story to have the reader empathize with her.  She is lecturing more to the audience about her thoughts about literature becoming dead. She informs the audience of her experience and connects with knowledge and how language is a symbol of existence just like the bird. She states in her story how the person holding the bird determines its fate and its all a metaphor for knowledge and language. Only we, as our own person, can determine how much knowledge or language we can create for ourselves.

Morrison & Wallace Dinner

If Morrison and Wallace came together and got to sat down at dinner, the conversation would be extremely interesting. They would talk about how viewing the world with a good outlook instead of a depressing outlook can have a huge change on your life. I think Morrison would appreciate the point of view that Wallace told his story from, because Morrison started out with the opposite view point.
Wallace would then tell Morrison that he appreciates that she included the young children's view point in the story because more people can relate to them instead of the old wise woman. The two authors might also have different views on which view point is more effective at reaching an audience (the older woman or a younger character.) Morrison could argue that the audience would listen and appreciate the wise woman's wisdom, while Wallace could talk about how relate-able a younger person with not as much wisdom is. I think they would agree to disagree on that topic because in the end, they both have a clear understanding that we can all make the world a better place just by our mindsets. We should never fail to realize that our experience in the world is what we chose to make of it.

compare and contrast

          Reading both David Foster Wallace's "This is Water" and Toni Morrison's Nobel Lecture I understand how both authors tell us its up to us how we chose to see society and also decide how we want to handle society.
          David Wallace says you can choose the way you think, like when you see a lady screaming at her little child you can think "what a horrible person to scream at her child" or as Wallace says you can change the way you think by thinking "maybe she's not usually like this; maybe she's been up three straight night's holding the hand of her husband who's dying of bone cancer, maybe..." Also Toni Morrison has a similar concept as she talks about the wise old women talking about the bird in the youth's hands. When they ask the old woman if the bird is alive or dead the old woman 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." which essentially means its in there hands or their choice to ether kill society or to let society live.
         Over all both authors are saying "it is in your hands," because it is in this youth's generation to let this society either strive or die with the way they decide to see it.

After reading both articles, I came to an conclusion that both authors were trying to give out kinda the same message out to the people that's listening. The world we live in gives off a way how to live sometimes, how to do things in a way and what not. David Wallace intends to say that no mater what the outcome that is being processed in your head of all the bad feelings and what not, that just to remind you that "its just water,its just water". Also one the ways you can compare these two is that Morison said this story about a blind women when he won the Nobel Prize, it was a great speech that hopefully inspires the  future of our generation.In the speech one part that gets me is when it states the kids holding the bird. It is basically impelling that we control our own language and what to say with it. That we hold to the key to the future. Wallace is just trying to get a message out saying that if we living like HOW WE ARE SUPPOSE to live; then we are not really living. He is basically saying that to live life with no regret. Sometimes you have to break the rules to get stuff you want to achieve in your life.

What an insightful dinner!

If both David Foster Wallace and Tori Wallace were to come together for a dinner, the topic of discussion would be the fact of how the people view the world and the way they actually should view it are different. David Wallace would explain to Tori Morrison how he liked her use of the children in the story to explain the fact to the women that she cannot tell them what everything means-- in order to understand they have to gain their own knowledge through experience. Morrison would commend Wallace on the fact that he realized that “the real value of real education has almost nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with awareness”. Wallace would then explain that he knows that we must constantly remain cognitive and try to be less self-centered in the way we think. He would go on to further say that he believed the way the women thought that certain parts of life already have a predefined meaning is wrong because he believed  that we as humans get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. Morrison would comment on how some things do, already, have a predefined meaning, but just because they do does not mean they are less important. They are not just there for the sake of being because they already have meaning.  They would conclude the discussion by saying that we as humans must be like the fish, in Wallace’s story, who remind themselves constantly that they are in water so they do not get caught up in an archetypical lifestyle to make their life more abstract. That in doing so we would actually see the world as it should be viewed.

I disagree with the views of Mr. Wallace. The view that people only look out for themselves is just hard to believe, because of the hundreds upon thousands of people who put the well-being of others before their own dissuades the belief that we, how Wallace puts it "routinely live our lives "dead"." Only caring about are own personal gain and getting a head in society. I have to say that even though that it is a basic function as humans to fend for yourself, it is also a basic function to feel sympathy toward other people, and help out other people when they are at their low. Example being when 9/11 occurred countries across the world reached out to offer assistance. Hell even the Kenyan Masai tribes donated 14 cows to the U.S after the event of 9/11. People who don't even know what a skyscraper is found in their hearts to lend aid in any way they could. So when Wallace says that people go through life "dead", and only lookout for themselves I find it hard to believe.

Comparing and Contrasting "This is Water" and Morrison's Nobel Lecture

On the basic level David Foster Wallace and Toni Morrison are pushing the same idea towards the audience. Society is molded by every individual's state of mind. It is our generation's responsibility to question the status quo and never be satisfied with the monotonous, the superficial, or the closed minded. Morrison warns of the people in charge forcing words into our mouths and restricting free thinking and a "mutual exchange of ideas" while Wallace warns us of the dangers of our mind's "default-setting" and how an egotistical perspective can block the kind of fraternal connection that binds us together as human beings.

In his speech, Wallace keeps a casual matter-of-fact tone to bluntly deliver the harsh realities of life at face value. At the start of the speech, David Wallace acknowledges that he is not the "wise old fish" and accepts his place as another face in the crowd experiencing the same struggles. Unlike Wallace, Morrison's story of the blind wise woman contains the implication that she has the solution to a very defined problem, and not just the acknowledgement of yes the world is cruel, here are my thoughts on that. Another key difference between the two speeches is that while Morrison believes the key to salvation is in the cerebral use of colorful language to exchange ideas, Wallace believes that the solution is simply to open your mind to possibilities to allow these ideas to flow.

Whether it be through the art of  language or just the way you see a stranger in the checkout lane, the underlying takeaway is that you alone have the capacity for greatness. Don't be molded by society. Think and feel and engage in the human experience, because if you don't, you might as well be dead already.

Blog Prompt Two: Life and Perception

While reading Toni Morrison's A Nobel Lecture, life jumps out to me as the main theme. This is similar to This is Water by David Foster Wallace because life is also prominent as the main theme. Both express their thoughts on humans, interaction, and how this interaction translates back to how people take life. Right, wrong, good, bad, life, death, presence, and absence is all created by the “thinkers” or “language keepers”: you.

Wallace and Morrison also drive home perception in regards to life. However, the ways in which the two presenters speak on how life is perceived is what differs. Morrison speaks on life through language. She saw language as a barrier and/or bridge that brought the perceptions of life closer together (or drove them further apart). Wallace, on the other hand, spoke on life perceived through ones own thoughts. He talked about life and how you see it will always be how you perceive it. Whether you chose to do so selfishly or selflessly is up to you. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent is up to you. 

Whether your creation (or perception) stemmed from language and involvement with others like Toni Morrison presented, or your creation stemmed from your own thoughts as David Foster Wallace said, this generalized theme of life holds true through both texts.

Compare and Contast

In the "Morrison Nobel Lecture",  Toni Morrison opens up her her speech by telling a story of an old blind lady. Morrison goes on to relate the characters in her story to the ultimate point of discussion, which is language. Language, in Morrison's viewpoint is not used to represent an event or what is going on. On the other hand, Morrison views language as actually being that event or that action taking place. The speech goes into dept about what language really is. Connections to Morrison's story and her interpretation of language are evident throughout the speech.
In comparison with Morrison's speech, "This Is Water" by David Foster Wallace also opens floor with a story. Wallace's story is basically about two young fish not knowing what water is when an older fish mentions the noun. Wallace, just like Morrison uses a story to convey a message to the readers. The message is that everything has a story behind it. The story might or might not be pretty, but it is up to the person to choose whether or not to acknowledge that story. The fish simply didn't know what water was because the fish simply didn't care.
The difference between Morrison's speech and Wallace's essay is that Wallace puts more personal opinion in the essay than Morrison does in the speech. Wallace writes about what he himself is like as a person. Morrison just speaks about what language means to her.

David Trevino

08/30/15

2) Compare and Contrast 

           Both of these stories have similarities and differences. This is Water is more of a essay to make people think about re-evaluating their thought process whereas Morrison's lecture speech is to get the crowd to understand that language is a beautiful thing and to re-evaluate the way it is used. For similarities though, they both do ask you to rethink the way your life is lived. 

           These two stories are able to be compared in the way that they ask you to change your thought process. For example in This is Water, he wants you to rethink your self centered way of life because other people might have problems too. Like the guy who is in a rush and is cutting people off on the highway, maybe he has has a injured child and needs to get to the hospital. In Morrison's speech she asks you to rethink the way you use language in your life by showing a blind woman who only has language to help her navigate through the worlds challenges is faced with disproving young children. The way they also use young people to get there point though is also similar. For instance in Morrisons's speech she uses young people to be kind of naive and unwise and in This is water the young people(fish) are shown that they are also naive in the fact they are unaware of there surroundings. 

             They also differ in ways too. In This is Water he challenges the reader to face a new way of thinking which is to not live in your default way of living. To Wallace the default way of living is be aware of only your self or not being socially aware. When Wallace refers to being socially aware he is talking about putting your self in others shoe and that not everything revolves around your self. In Morrison's speech she challenges the reader to understand the importance of language and how it is used. She uses the blind old woman and young people for an example in how important language is. 

               These two stories are simmilar in ways, that they challenge you too re-evaluate your normal lifestyles and they differ in what needs to be changed.

Disagreement to THIS IS WATER By Adrian R. Villarreal

I have to disagree with David F. Wallace. Wallace says that “it is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive, day in and day out”. It’s not hard, to help others. It’s not hard to pay attention, being aware and to have the discipline for making the time in a way to give back to others. People do it all the time. From Missionaries to charities, People are willing to sacrifice their time to help others in need. For example the 2015 San Marcos Memorial Day flood, many people gathered to help after the flood. I personally saw the city’s command center where they directed new volunteers to streets in the flood zones. The volunteer count was up to 450 people on a single street, and many more still in line to help. Wallace says it’s hard to be alive, day in and day out. Life is hard, but you have to be full of love, caring and compassion to your neighbors, and to treat everyone with respect even when you’re not treated the same. You must try to be calm and collective. Even though this will never happen all the time, but we can make it a good life habit. I like to always look in to the positive side of things so I know that there will be some sort of good at the end life.  

An Opposing View on Humanity (Prompt #4)

In "This is Water," David Foster Wallace brings human nature into question, accusing humanity as a whole of being naturally egocentric. This assertion is incredibly narrow-minded, and frankly, a very American perspective. Humanity is naturally altruistic, and only craves experience and the pursuit of happiness.

It is true that being taught how to think, or how Wallace phrases it, “learning how to think” is a crucial part of the human psyche. Wallace even goes so far as to say that learning how to think means being able to choose how one “constructs meaning from experience,” which is very true. What he failed to recognize, however, is that learning how to think does not simply teach how not to be naturally self-centered, or in the “natural default-setting” as he liked to put it. Wallace was much more correct in saying that learning how to think enables people to draw meaning from experience, whether that be a very normal day-to-day experience, or a once in a lifetime kind of experience. This is because one of the very few things that humanity naturally craves is experience. Generally, people crave experience because experience leads to knowledge: an essential tool in the pursuit of happiness. And, in the grand scheme of things, all that people really want is to be happy. If something as trivial as a traffic jam or slow-moving line at a Walmart (even on a daily basis) regularly brings even the Author to such a state of self-pity and loathing as he so articulately described, then Wallace himself needs to experience other parts of the world, where many people often don't have SUVs and supermarkets at their disposal. He may then realize that seeing the positive, even while sitting in line at Walmart, is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of reason and human nature. Egocentrism has become a societal poison, especially in the U.S., and “This is Water” is the result.

If they both sat down to dinner.

If Toni Morrison and David Wallace sat down to dinner it would certainly be something I would like to experience. The stern and somewhat narrow opinion of Morrison paired with the seemingly open minded Wallace would be something amazing. I imagine the conversation starting off rather quickly with strong points from the beginning. However, I do believe they are on somewhat the same page when you really dig deep enough. Morrison makes a very strong initial case that the 'youth' is responsible for the death of language. That only they can be the ones who can save language or send it to its death. So in that aspect it is in our hands and we control it, no one else is responsible. Now, that sounds rather familiar in 'This is Water' doesn't it. Wallace has a different approach to how it is delivered though, which is to be expected as he is giving a commencement speech not a Noble Piece Prize acceptance speech. So it may seem that they are different if you look at it on the surface. Although as you dig deeper into what he is trying to say you find that he is basically saying the same thing just in everyday life as opposed to in a specific sense with Morrison. I think they will actually have a very in depth conversation on what they were trying to say in their own speeches. I imagine they have a very strong respect for each other since they are so highly esteemed. I have come to this conclusion through something I found in both speeches that i feel is overlooked. They both state importance of the very basic things we take for granted, so i feel that we are over analyzing and not focusing on the main idea. Which in both is that it is all in OUR own hands.

Prompt #4

David Foster Wallace preaches the practice of utilizing perspective in “This is Water.” He believes in actively placing oneself in others' shoes to perhaps achieve a better, more positive outlook on a situation. His goal is to both teach and remind the reader that in all bad there is good if one chooses to see it. All of these techniques and ideals are ways to go about avoiding a default setting of selfishness Wallace speaks of, but I personally could not disagree with his methods more.

The world I see around me reeks of suppression, segregation, and violence. While there will always be that one person who brightens your day with their selflessness and those few people who represent the good in the world, it’s only a matter of time until you encounter a show of selfishness to dim the lights right back down.

I remain cynical and cautious of most things I do and most people I meet. While Wallace, had he not committed suicide three years after ‘This is Water’, may view my stance as counterproductive or even unhealthy, I see it as dependable. If I put myself first, I will be taken care of first. I myself have enough problems and mental thorns. Time spent attending to the needs and wounds of others is time for my needs to go on unfulfilled; for my untreated wounds to grow infected.

Wallace would say that practicing this outlook on life limits me greatly in bettering myself, gaining knowledge, and exploring the plains of consciousness.  I believe, however, that it will keep me safe during the completion of these actions. Through cynicism and caution I will be able to find the path of least resistance and explore at my own pace in my own comfort zone. I will find my positive outlook by making myself happy, not everyone I meet.