David Foster Wallace Kenyon Commencement Speech

The Effective Power of Wallace’s Speech

When I first read David Foster Wallace’s Kenyon Commencement speech, I instantly gained a reaction from it. What struck me the most was the way that I felt, I had actually had a connection with what he was talking about. I felt as if I had actually been in the audience and was sitting right below him listening to every ounce of word he was saying. His sole purpose in his speech was to introduce and redefine what education was. Not only did he make his point across through his speech thoroughly but the way he did it with his choice of words, tone, and style were what impressed me the most.

Wallace uses a tremendous use of examples to portray his message, for example he uses many analogies that a reader

can connect to from experience. By doing this he gives a sense that his speech could be meant for anyone and it could impact everyone. For example in his speech he gives the example of the daily routine and grocery shopping to show his audience how to overlook frustration by choosing how to react to it. When he uses that example he’s using the mythos rhetorical appeal by implying that the stories that he gives contribute to our everyday lives.
The Kenyon Commencement speech maintained a consistent humorous yet mature tone throughout. In my opinion the tone he used to present his issue was well chosen, it was settle and calm but still came off as professional. By doing this he appealed to the younger audience by allowing it to seem as a conversational topic rather than just ranting on about his issue. Also when he used humor in his speech he opened doors for his younger audience to be interested into what he was going to say. I’d say that the way Wallace went about his tone was smart because it conveyed his message to seem intriguing and funny, such as when he introduces the fish story and the fish just replies with “what the hell is water?” This is just an example in how he used humor to be effective to his audience.
In relation to make Wallace’s speech seem more effective, I decided to use Geoff Dyers essay Out of Sheer Rage to demonstrate the different qualities that each article has. When I read Dyers’ essay I immediately felt as if the anger was directed morally to me. Although Dyers’ essay seemed to have greater intense emotion, Wallace decided to use different tones throughout his speech to back up his style. Both Dyer and Wallace have distinct writing styles, one more effective than the other. With Dyer he tends to use shorter phrases to indicate his disappointment and frustration while Wallace’s style has stronger sentence structure to validate his points. An example on how Wallace’s style is more filled is when he says “of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I'm supposed to talk about your liberal arts education's meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff.” He uses more full sentences to get a greater effect on the reader by not being short and broad. He explains and comments on what his thoughts are rather than Dyer who simply uses short terms like “I hate “understanding” people, and I hate more still to be understood.” I think if Dyer were to expand more on short phrases like Wallace does it’d be more effective to his writing.
What makes both papers contradict each other and make it seem more effective is the fact that they have different purposes. Going back to Wallace’s issue, he’s redefining the value of thinking and learning how to think. He states “learning how to think means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.” From this quote I gained a full perspective from what Wallace was trying to lay out that people have the choice to choose what matters and what doesn’t. But in contrary Dyer’s issue was completely different, he believed that everything was about him and that if things didn’t go his way then it was wrong. When viewing both issues, Wallace’s seems to have a greater impact on a reader because it’s an issue that many can relate to. The question is, is Dyer even trying to relate to his readers? In my opinion I think that Dyer is simply ranting on about his disappointment yet pleasing moment when he does not get what he wants. I think that’s why he makes Wallace’s topic seem more logical and relevant.
To show that Wallace’s speech was effective, I analyzed it with the rhetorical appeal square. Wallace made a great use out of all the rhetorical appeals starting off by pathos. He used the pathos appeal effectively when he controlled his tone to make the audience feel as if it were a usual conversation rather than a commencement speech for a graduation. When he used the pathos feels he found words that could appeal to his sense of dictation such as “we prize tolerance and diversity of belief.” The second rhetorical appeal that gave his speech a stronger purpose was the ethos appeal. He used this one very wisely to get his audience thinking. He did this by telling short stories exclaiming his main issue. The examples and the analogies that Wallace would give would demonstrate that there was credibility to the point he was trying to get across, that any one of those things could happen to any individual. Using the ethos appeal he made his speech effective by making it more relatable to the audience. Not only did Wallace improve the effectiveness of his speech by setting an environment where everyone could connect to it but he also had a relevant topic.
In the process of hearing or reading about a topic I like to see how it impacts me or whether it got me thinking.

Back to Wallace’s sole purpose about choosing what to overlook and how to overlook it I think it gave me a sense that many of us are so blind to the world around us. He was effective enough to demonstrate what the actual quote of “think before you speak” means. His speech positively had an effect on me, it was a broad topic yet somehow he seemed to expand it in a way where I thoroughly thought about how I lived my life. Was I oblivious to the things and people around me? When I questioned myself I knew that David Wallace’s Kenyon Commencement speech was effective because it spoke to me. Yet when I thought about how Dyer had made me feel, it had just made me feel like I wanted to be angry at the world for something I really shouldn’t be angry about. I did not like the negative effect I got from Dyer’s essay because it made me question whether he had real meaningful intentions with the world around him. What pushed to compare both articles and say that one was better than the other in the end was that one had more of a logical purpose. Wallace’s thoughts seeped through every word that he had said because he made me understand that it’s not about receiving wisdom but knowing how to use

it.
Overall I’d still agree with my starting argument that David Foster Wallace’s Kenyon Commencement was effective. He made his audience feel connected to the topic, tone of voice was settle yet direct, and he knew how to play around with the stories to get that relatable feeling. He knew how to go back and forth with his main purpose to remind the audience why he was giving that speech in the first place. He figuratively delivered his issue in a subtle way that could allow the readers to gain a better understanding of his point. Wallace presented a very well done, informational speech that actually had an impact on why and that is why I stand for to say it was effective and meaningful.