In Neil Andersen’s talk, he began with listing fruit in a humorous way – from which he described in detail the story of the Tree of Life from The Book of Mormon. Even though this story should be relatively familiar to his audience, he continues as if to be telling it to an audience that doesn’t know the reference. I find it interesting that most general authorities do this, but I believe it helps their argument throughout the talk. Because he described the story of the Tree of Life in detail, when he went on to tell the story of Jason Hall, we understood the purpose of this new account.
With the story of Jason, he was able to describe his story from a first-person account. He used quotations from Jason and also incorporated the reactions from his wife and child. I think adding in the dialog and direct quotations added an important element to his talk – it gave his stories credibility.
Lastly, I think the parallels that he was able to derive from the stories was important to tie his talk back together. Starting with the story of the Tree of Life, to the story about Jason’s life, then to the description of his wife and child’s reaction to the tragedy of Jason’s death, Andersen uses each story to tie back to the original. There is a purpose for each of the stories that he tells and they are intertwined throughout his talk.
I think humor is a great way too tell a story, it brings another way to capture the audiences' emotions. Humor is something we all love and it is a great way to teach if you can bring your audience back to being serious about their thinking and reflection.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of "audience" that you bring up as a literary tactic is interesting because you are right, most general authorities retell a very well known story. The question is why. In your response, you mentioned that is ties into setting the stage for their talk and the metaphor for the fruit. I wonder, if maybe they are trying to "convert" any non members or less active members that are listening. Maybe they feel like this group of people needs to hear the basics more so? Or do they go to the basics intentionally so that even strong latter day saint members may be reminded of the roots that support their faith? Maybe multi-leveled meaning is to be found in who their audience truly is?
ReplyDeleteI also interested by her comment about audience. I think they probably do it for a multitude of reasons, including the ones you listed. I also think there is something about telling a story in your own words. It gives you the opportunity to encourage your audience to see it from your own perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a really good point with how effective it was to intertwine the two stories--one being familiar to us, while the other one being from a personal account, which added to what he was trying to get across, since he had the personal experience to relate to.
ReplyDeleteThe dialog was also very effective to me as I listened. I think I'll try and incorporate more when I write.
ReplyDelete