The TED presentation that I will analyze on this text is the speech titled as “The Politics of Fiction”, presented by Elif Şafak (please see https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_politics_of_fiction?language=en). She is a Turkish fiction writer or a storyteller as she says so in her speech. Her speech was about how the politics of identity interfere in our view of the world. The message implied by the speech was that we must get out of our cultural comfort zones which in the end turns into stigmatization cells and causes widespread stereotyping. We are to achieve this end through the means of reading or creating fiction books, according to Elif Şafak. I find the message of the speech very inspirational. In addition to this, her tone was very sympathetic, and also her technique in giving the speech was quite original. She used a circular method in giving her speech, which created both suspense and fluency. All in all, Elif Şafak’s speech was a success on my behalf, due to the choice of the subject and also the way she delivered the topic. As I have stated my overall impression of the speech, let me move on to the analysis of the presentation.
In terms of organization and content, I will analyze her speech in five parts: introduction, clarity of ideas, supporting ideas, use of transitions and signposts, and conclusion. In the introduction, she did not introduce herself or greet the audience, but she gave the audience an idea about what she does for living. She said that she was going to talk about the art of storytelling, and the djinni. However, this was an attention getting technique called misdirecting the audience. Although she claimed she was going to talk about storytelling, she ended up talking about how the politics of identity harm our views of the world and other people. She also used another technique called creating suspense. She said that she was going to give her speech with words and with circles. When the audience heard of this sentence, no one understood what was coming ahead, and it made them curious about the structure of her presentation. She then said that she was going to give the audience background information on her life, and she moved on to the body part of her speech. Overall, her introduction was relevant to her topic; she also set the context of her speech and involved the audience in it. As for the clarity of the ideas that she presented, although her circular technique blurred the ideas that she wanted to stress sometimes, she emphasized the important points over and over again, through the use of different supporting techniques. She gave examples, used analogies and referred to testimonies. Especially her analogies were quite successful. Her use of transitions and sign-posts were also quite successful. It was easy to follow her speech, as she prepared the audience for the upcoming part of her speech, and commented at the end of each “circle”. When we come to the conclusion part of her speech, she did not signal a closure, so it was hard to see if she was ending her speech or not. However, through the use of more analogies, she summarized her ideas, the key points of her speech. And to leave a memorable impact, she used a poem which was really an expression of her speech. So, her overall organization was good, but not perfect. Although she committed some errors, she saved her speech through the use of the circle technique, and her delivery skills which I will analyze in the next paragraph.
Elif Şafak’s physical delivery was, in general, quite good. Her appearance was very adequate and up to the occasion. She kept her eye-contact in maximum level and used facial expressions. When she made a joke she smiled, and when she made a sarcastic point she widened her eyes etc. Her body language was quite an embracing one. She used gestures, but only on a necessary level. Her posture was signaling “I am telling an interesting thing”, which was exactly what she was doing. She did not move much, but her presence filled up the stage. In terms of her vocal delivery, she was also good, but she talked very fast. Her voice was smooth, and the volume of her voice was adequate. And although her intonation and tone was good for her to pass on vocal variety, her pace and pauses lacked behind. She was very fluent in speaking, but she was also very rapid. Also she did not pause much on the important points, and therefore caused a lack of emphasis on some parts. So in general, although her physical delivery was good, her vocal delivery lagged behind.
Elif Şafak did not use any visual aids in her presentation, which was not a problem because her speech did not require the aid of any visuals or graphs. She grasped the audience through her use of language and her tone, and her presence. So, the lack of visual aids was not felt at all.
To sum up, Elif Şafak’s presentation skills are quite high. She organized her speech very well, and delivered that speech in a very magical, and also fast, way. Although she did not use any visual aids, that was not a problem. I believe the ideas that she stressed are of crucial importance in our contemporary societies. And her technique in giving those ideas was very interesting as well. The circles made up the essence of her speech, and they were to be countered everywhere in her speech, as she said in her introduction. I believe that this technique really grasped the audience, and her success lies in her great writing.