Public Speaking is probably the number one leading cause of stress-induced cry sessions in college. It's no walk in the park, especially when you have to talk in front of your peers about something you most likely don't care about and may not even know that much about. I've had my fair share of public speaking experience and I am here to recount the best and the worst.
I have been acting since I was six. I have been involved in over thirty productions at various locations in my hometown. I consider this to be public speaking, since I was speaking publicly. Haha. Anyway, acting helped me develop many skills that I then transfered to different English classes. Because I was so used to playing the role of a different character, I think one of my strengths as a public speaker is my ability to sound fluid and natural in front of a crowd. So many times you hear public speakers who sound robotic and inhuman. It's so much easier to listen to people when it feels like you're having a conversation with them. I believe this is one of my stronger areas.
One area I am not so strong in is my preparedness. I am a top-notch procrastinator, and that trait trasanfers to all aspects of my life. My methods for just about anything usually include making it up as I go and hoping for the best. That has come back to bite me on more than one occassion in my public speaking career. Obviously, one way I can solve this is to prepare more for all of my public speaking endeavours. Another thing I can do if I end up not prepared for a speech (because, let's face it, that's probably more likely than not) is to work on my improv skills. Although I did a couple of improv productions in my time, I never excelled at it and when I lose my spot in my notes, that is more than obvious. If I take the time to work on preparing my speeches better and going with the flow if I happen to get off track, my public speaking career will be lit as ever.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Marianas...Circle? (Circle Post 5)
In the wonderful world of young adult novels, authors tend to like to use symbolism to get their point across, emphasize an idea or foreshadow. Dave Eggars in The Circle is no exception to this. While we can obviously see that the Circle is a dangerous idea and taking away from the beauty of individuality, Eggars goes as far as exquisitely illustrating this point with gruesome murder scene.
When the shark was placed with the other sea creatures, obviously it devoured them immediately, because of the shark's predator instincts. This scene was teeming with symbolism. The shark represented The Circle and its ever-growing and ominous presence in the world. The octopus and seahorses symbolized basically everyone else in the world. Everyone is unique and special and everyone has their own place in the world. As the novel progressed, the Circle went from a new and glamorous institute that everyone wanted to be part of to a huge corporation that was slowly taking over the world. Its totalitarian-like role in the world acted much like the shark did, it sought out the different people in the world and inevitably "destroyed" them. In Mae's case, the Circle destroyed her individuality and who she was and turned her into a walking Circle advertisement. While the shark preyed on weaker creatures, the Circle preyed on anyone who was weak enough to succumb to its overwhelming influence or anyone who was a possible threat to the Circle's existence.
On page 480-481, Eggars describes the death of the octopus. It doesn't go without a fight, but rather it must be ripped apart before it is finally murdered. This resistance represents Mae from Book I and those like her. She did not fully commit to the Circle way of life; she didn't post everything on all social media all the time like the Circle wanted her to. Just as the octopus struggled to stay alive but was inevitably killed, Mae did her best to remain true to herself and her individuality, but was inevitably engulfed by all that the Circle was.
Later on page 481, Eggars described how the shark very easily ate the seahorse because it was defenseless and delicate. This reminds me of people like Annie. She was instantly consumed by the glory of the Circle and that she got to work there and blindly followed the Circle way of life without putting up resistance.
In summary, Eggars did a wonderful job of itnertwining the message of The Circle into the Marianas Trench wildlife scene. He perfectly summed up how totalitarian governments obtain and keep their power without ever actually mentioning the word "totalitarian". This scene, carefully placed toward the end of the book, is a great way of epitomizing the theme of the book in a not-so-obvious way.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Trasnparency and Identity (Circle Post 4)
As I continue reading The Circle, I become more creeped out by everything that's going on in the novel. I knew that when I started reading this, I would get a 1984 feeling. A huge incorporation that is increasingly become a part of everyone's daily lives? Yep, sounds like a Big Brother situation to me. However, I had no idea when I started reading that I would be looking through the eyes of one of the most devoted followers of the company. From what I've gathered, the Circle's goal is to make everyone and everything reachable and tangible; nothing and no one is hidden from the world. As I read further, I notice that is also Mae's new goal.
From the moment I started reading the book, I always thought Mae seemed pretty insecure. She was very shy during her first day on the job and wanted to do whatever she had to do to fit in at The Circle. It didn't ever really seem like she stopped doing whatever she had to do to fit in, either. That point was made abundantly clear at the end of Book I when she agreed to go transparent. Mae's entire life would change after she went trasnparent. There would be no more privacy for Mae virtually ever. She would be totally exposed to the world at all times, which is exactly what The Circle wanted. She was playing right into their dirty little games. Going transparent was definitely satisfying The Circle and made her fit in more. When she was on stage when they announced she was going transparent, everyone went wildly crazy. It's almost as if Mae is doing all of this stuff to validate herself and make herself seem worthwile; if she does what The Circle wants her to do, everyone will love her, no matter if that means doing something morally wrong.
Mae's perpetual role as a Circle ambassador coincides with going transparent. Becoming an ambassador is just another way to give The Circle what it wants, and of course Mae is eager to do it. She would get to represent the company she loves so much (the one she gave her life to, quite literally). This would only increase her popularity in The Circle and therefore make her seem more desirable, at least in the eyes of everyone else at The Circle, and really, that's all that mattered. The more involved Mae could become with The Circle, the better she felt. It seems like Mae is almost addicted to getting involved, like she gets a sort of high from it. I don't know if I'm fully convinced that Mae started out doing all of this for the love of The Circle, but I think that as time went on, The Circle virtually brainwashed Mae, quite like Big Brother did to Winston Smith in 1984. As Mae lost more of herself, she became more engrossed in The Circle and was more willing to do whatever The Circle wanted.
From the moment I started reading the book, I always thought Mae seemed pretty insecure. She was very shy during her first day on the job and wanted to do whatever she had to do to fit in at The Circle. It didn't ever really seem like she stopped doing whatever she had to do to fit in, either. That point was made abundantly clear at the end of Book I when she agreed to go transparent. Mae's entire life would change after she went trasnparent. There would be no more privacy for Mae virtually ever. She would be totally exposed to the world at all times, which is exactly what The Circle wanted. She was playing right into their dirty little games. Going transparent was definitely satisfying The Circle and made her fit in more. When she was on stage when they announced she was going transparent, everyone went wildly crazy. It's almost as if Mae is doing all of this stuff to validate herself and make herself seem worthwile; if she does what The Circle wants her to do, everyone will love her, no matter if that means doing something morally wrong.
Mae's perpetual role as a Circle ambassador coincides with going transparent. Becoming an ambassador is just another way to give The Circle what it wants, and of course Mae is eager to do it. She would get to represent the company she loves so much (the one she gave her life to, quite literally). This would only increase her popularity in The Circle and therefore make her seem more desirable, at least in the eyes of everyone else at The Circle, and really, that's all that mattered. The more involved Mae could become with The Circle, the better she felt. It seems like Mae is almost addicted to getting involved, like she gets a sort of high from it. I don't know if I'm fully convinced that Mae started out doing all of this for the love of The Circle, but I think that as time went on, The Circle virtually brainwashed Mae, quite like Big Brother did to Winston Smith in 1984. As Mae lost more of herself, she became more engrossed in The Circle and was more willing to do whatever The Circle wanted.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Privacy is...Theft? (Circle Post 3)
As we delve deeper into the world of The Circle I am constantly reminded of the dystopian future about which Orwell warned everyone nearly a century ago. Hearing about how everything is connected to everything else reminds me of the telescreens in every home in the world of 1984 and the ever-present Thought Police. One thing that has especially reminded me of the invasive nature of the Big Brother government are the three beliefs of The Circle: "Secrets are lies", "Sharing is caring", and "Privacy is theft". These are similar to the three phrases often repeated in 1984, "Freedom is slavery", "war is peace", and "ignorance is strength". These slogans were repeated in 1984 to condition the citizens to believe them absent-mindedly, and it seems as if the three mantras of The Circle exist for a similar purpose.
One of the mantras that seems particularly important at this point in the novel is "privacy is theft". The main purpose of TruYou is not only to connect every aspect of one's life to the internet for convenience reasons, but also to make every aspect of one's life available to the public. This is further illustrated with the invention of SeeChange, the small HD cameras that pick up everything in real time. Now, not only is all of a person's information and social media available to the public, but anyone anywhere in the world can see and hear what that person is doing. This makes life very transparent and almost completely removes privacy.
Because everyone at The Circle is so engrossed in Circle culture, they seem to go along with whatever The Circle is doing without question. This includes the systematic erasure of privacy. One such circumstance occurred on pages 176-179. Dan met with Mae to ask how she was doing at The Circle, and it was revealed that Mae went to another store rather than use the company store. Soon, Dan was bringing up all sorts of things about Mae, like how she barely used any of the company's facilities or hadn't posted anything about a company event. That encounter was followed by an interrogation by Denise and Josiah about why Mae wasn't broadcasting every action in her life to everyone in The Circle. Everyone acted personally offended that Mae wasn't sharing every detail of her life with everyone.
I can somewhat see a point in the "privacy is theft" mantra. There are some instances in which I can understand the harm of withholding information, such as a witness not giving a full story to a judge or a patient not giving a doctor all of the symptoms he or she is experiencing. In both cases, not all information is presented and it can cause serious harm to people. However, withholding information such as pictures from a party or telling someone you've gone kayaking is definitely not detrimental to anyone's health and it certainly doesn't put a company's reputation at risk, as Denise, Josiah and Dan seem to believe. I do not agree that withholding each and every detail of one's life is harmful to anyone, but in a company like The Circle and with a program like TruYou, I am not in the least bit surprised that the Circlers seem to think that it is.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
The Delicate Relationship Between Intimacy and Privacy (Circle Post 2)
When you hear the word, "intimacy", your mind almost undoubtedly jumps to the thought of two lovers sharing a romantic moment. Most often, two lovers share an intimate moment when they are in a private setting. Intimacy and privacy are inseparably linked. Intimacy does not only mean closeness in a romantic sense, but rather it encompasses any closeness or familiarity two or more people can have among each other.
Privacy and intimacy go hand-in-hand. As I previously stated, intimacy is any closeness shared by two or more people. If the privacy disappears from the situation, then the intimacy also disappears, because the closeness shared by people cannot be experienced when others who do not share the same closeness are present. For example, in The Circle, after Mae's first day on the job, there was a large campus-wide party. After losing Annie, Mae finds a man named Francis. Franics and Mae talk about her first day, and they share a few minutes of intimacy, escalated when Franics compliments Mae's voice. However, this experience is sharply curtailed when Annie suddenly drops in on the two. This is a perfect example of how lack of privacy is synonymous with lack of intimacy.
Another example of the relationship between privacy and intimacy comes later in the novel when Mae had a meeting with Dan and Alistair. Mae had missed a brunch and the person in charge of it was very distraught. The problem was resolved and the meeting was adjourned very quickly. At the end of the meeting, the three Circlers hugged. When Mae went to tell Annie about it, she discovered that Annie already knew. Mae was not very comortable with that. "In quick succession, two waves passed over Mae. First, profound unease that Annie had been listening without her knowledge..." (Eggers 31). Mae had shared an intimate moment with the two other people in the room, and when she found out that Annie had been listening in, she became uncomfortable. This is obviously a gut reaction because intimate experiences are naturally supposed to be private experiences, too.
A third time intimacy and privacy were stripped from a situation was when Franics and Mae went to the Friday innovation talk. Francis and Mae were sitting together in the audience enjoying the talk when Francis volunteered to help the speaker and revealed that he wanted to date Mae. (Eggers 118-122). Mae was utterly embarrassed when he admitted to the whole audience that he wanted to date her, because until then, their relationship had been very intimate and private. After he told the whole room he wanted to date her, the privacy was gone and the intimacy was gone because everyone knew that there was something between them; they were no longer sharing a moment together, they were sharing the moment with everyone in the room.
Intimacy and privacy are very closely related to each other; without privacy, intimacy cannot exist. This notion was exemplified throughout the first pages of The Circle, most obviously present in moments shared between Francis and Mae. When one is tken away, the other is also lost.
Privacy and intimacy go hand-in-hand. As I previously stated, intimacy is any closeness shared by two or more people. If the privacy disappears from the situation, then the intimacy also disappears, because the closeness shared by people cannot be experienced when others who do not share the same closeness are present. For example, in The Circle, after Mae's first day on the job, there was a large campus-wide party. After losing Annie, Mae finds a man named Francis. Franics and Mae talk about her first day, and they share a few minutes of intimacy, escalated when Franics compliments Mae's voice. However, this experience is sharply curtailed when Annie suddenly drops in on the two. This is a perfect example of how lack of privacy is synonymous with lack of intimacy.
Another example of the relationship between privacy and intimacy comes later in the novel when Mae had a meeting with Dan and Alistair. Mae had missed a brunch and the person in charge of it was very distraught. The problem was resolved and the meeting was adjourned very quickly. At the end of the meeting, the three Circlers hugged. When Mae went to tell Annie about it, she discovered that Annie already knew. Mae was not very comortable with that. "In quick succession, two waves passed over Mae. First, profound unease that Annie had been listening without her knowledge..." (Eggers 31). Mae had shared an intimate moment with the two other people in the room, and when she found out that Annie had been listening in, she became uncomfortable. This is obviously a gut reaction because intimate experiences are naturally supposed to be private experiences, too.
A third time intimacy and privacy were stripped from a situation was when Franics and Mae went to the Friday innovation talk. Francis and Mae were sitting together in the audience enjoying the talk when Francis volunteered to help the speaker and revealed that he wanted to date Mae. (Eggers 118-122). Mae was utterly embarrassed when he admitted to the whole audience that he wanted to date her, because until then, their relationship had been very intimate and private. After he told the whole room he wanted to date her, the privacy was gone and the intimacy was gone because everyone knew that there was something between them; they were no longer sharing a moment together, they were sharing the moment with everyone in the room.
Intimacy and privacy are very closely related to each other; without privacy, intimacy cannot exist. This notion was exemplified throughout the first pages of The Circle, most obviously present in moments shared between Francis and Mae. When one is tken away, the other is also lost.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
An Outsider's Perspective: Penn State v. The Circle (Circle Post 1)
The thought of starting a virtually new life in a bigger, better place than where one grows up is definitely exciting and somewhat daunting at the same time. It's exciting to think about all of the new things to experience and the new people to meet, but it's also scary to think about these things. The overwhelming sense of excitement and nervousness is enough to drive anyone over the edge. Mae Holland experienced all of these feelings and emotions as she embarked on her journey as a Circler, and I also experienced these same feelings as a began my journey as a Nittany Lion.
Penn State and The Circle are very similar. Both are huge, modern, creme de la creme institutions. Everything is so advanced and seemingly better than anything you could possibly get anywhere else. One thing I noticed was that everyone at The Circle seemed to have an absolute love for The Circle; there was nothing wrong with The Circle, nor could anything bad ever come from it. I kind of get the same impression from Penn Staters. The atmosphere is almost cult-like. Don't get me wrong, I've fully embraced the Penn State cult and I love Penn State, but it's something I noticed before I got to campus and I definitely have been noticing since I arrived. There are also wild parties thrown both at Penn State and The Circle, and everyone seems to have a great time whether they are actually working or having fun.
There are obviously some differences between Penn State and The Circle, too. For example, Penn State is a university and The Circle is a workplace. There are some other small differences, like at The Circle, one receives upgraded versions of their laptops, tablets, phones, etc. Penn State doesn't provide that luxury for its students. However, so far in my reading, I haven't really noticed many differences between Penn State and The Circle other than the small distinguishers between a university and a workplace.
So far, The Circle and Penn State seem like pretty similar experiences. If The Circle truly is like Penn State, then I can understand why Mae must love it so much.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
"The Good Old Days"...were they really that good, and are they really that long gone?
When I signed up for Rhetoric and Civic Life at New Student Orientation, I didn't know what rhetoric was. After about a week and a half in this class, I still don't really know what rhetoric is. All I knew was that I had to take this class to fulfill my Paterno Fellows requirements. That's pretty much still the only thing that I know regarding this class. Writing isn't exactly my forte, so when I heard we had to write a blog, let alone two blogs, the eye rolling and groaning ensued. I had no idea what I was supposed to write about for the Passion Blog, and I really didn't want to think about writing every single week.
As I mentioned before, I don't know what rhetoric is. I don't know how it relates to civic life, and I certainly don't know how to adequately blog. However, I do know that I love history. I've had a real passion for history for about a year and a half now. As I learned more about history, I discovered that the people of the past are pretty similar to us in 2016. Grant it, they obviously went about their daily lives in a different fashion and they probably held things to different standards of importance than we do now, but the same basic human nature was there. In general, most people seem to regard past civilizations as erudite and grand, or at the very least better than us, but that isn't always the case.
For my Passion Blog, I would like to write about history. History can be really interesting, I promise. Each week, I will write about a different interesting historical moment, and then I will go on to explain a human trait or "life lesson", for lack of a better term, that we can derive from these points in history. I hope to show you that the "good old days" never really existed, in a way, because we're living them.
As I mentioned before, I don't know what rhetoric is. I don't know how it relates to civic life, and I certainly don't know how to adequately blog. However, I do know that I love history. I've had a real passion for history for about a year and a half now. As I learned more about history, I discovered that the people of the past are pretty similar to us in 2016. Grant it, they obviously went about their daily lives in a different fashion and they probably held things to different standards of importance than we do now, but the same basic human nature was there. In general, most people seem to regard past civilizations as erudite and grand, or at the very least better than us, but that isn't always the case.
For my Passion Blog, I would like to write about history. History can be really interesting, I promise. Each week, I will write about a different interesting historical moment, and then I will go on to explain a human trait or "life lesson", for lack of a better term, that we can derive from these points in history. I hope to show you that the "good old days" never really existed, in a way, because we're living them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)