12/28/2022 0 Comments Ispeech critique![]() ![]() ![]() I have not a shred of doubt that Rusty Reno writes brilliant treatises. I still haven’t reached the end of the speech. That was yesterday and, duly refreshed, I revisited the speech this morning only to drop off again. I briefly dropped off and, deciding that my advanced years meant that this was one of those afternoons that would benefit from a nap, I went and had one. I wasn’t indulging in humorous hyperbole when I mentioned struggling to stay awake. Read out a learned treatise and even a learned audience is as good as lost. When will people learn that spoken English and written English are different languages? Write a learned treatise and any reasonably educated person will happily read and make sense of it. I’m prepared to bet that he can also remember all the arguments that support each one, but he doesn’t trust himself to do so because each time he plunges afresh into his script. Interestingly he seems to have managed to memorise all seven propositions because he raises his eyes to his audience to reveal each one. They would make far more sense of it if they read it, each person absorbing it at his or her own pace. Unless his audience has been given a transcript of this talk they’re never going to remember all seven propositions still less the arguments that support them and if they have been given a transcript why is he bothering to read it to them. His first mistake is having as many as seven propositions. Having been itching to learn more, I am now struggling to stay awake. That done he pulls his spectacles down from the crown of his head, peers through them at his script, and thereafter he might as well have been speaking in Klingon. So far so crystal clear, even up to and including his stating his first proposition. For the first three quarters of a minute he tells us that he is going to address this knotty issue through the medium of seven propositions. Not content with making a fine job of introducing Carlson, he makes an excellent job of introducing himself and his topic. Here is a speech that I offer as a bonus and which moved Madam Deputy Speaker to declare it one of the best speeches she had ever heard in the House of Commons. Yes he really is a very good speaker, equipped with an outstanding memory, and amazingly adept at addressing matters that are miles outside his apparent expertise. His attitude throughout suggests he is open to debating all views, and the consequent conversation will be the richer for it. I would have challenged his repeatedly trotting out ‘legitimate state monopoly on the use of violence’ as a commonplace desirability, because defining ‘legitimate’ presents immediate knottiness, even if you are prepared to overlook the 2nd amendment in the US Bill Of Rights, and so on. Had I been in the audience I would have highlighted the way the developed world’s devotion to the preposterous climate change fallacy denies impoverished African countries access to cheap energy from coal. ![]() #Ispeech critique full#Though the absence of an audience mic prevents us from properly hearing the questions, the way he addresses them seems to acknowledge their value and his answers to these relatively random issues are as full of detailed data from memory as the main body of the speech. That quality enriches the questions he receives. Insecurity would not allow that admission. Stewart’s willingness in this speech to admit to questions to which he has no answers speaks eloquently for his inner confidence. Deep knowledge brings with it a heightened awareness of that which you don’t know. There is another less obvious quality to his knowledge of his subject. In 2002 he took leave from his job with the British foreign service to walk across Asia, entitling him thereafter to speak for those at the grass roots as one who had lived there. #Ispeech critique skin#Consider the extraordinary lengths to which he goes in order to get right under the skin of the communities and cultures with which he deals. We see him showing total command of his subject, quoting from memory myriad facts, figures and a wide range of random data, and we are reminded that he makes his own luck. ![]() Stewart here is being rather better than “ok”. Well of course! In an ideal world no one would be asked to speak on something they didn’t really know (though there are tricks) but this isn’t an ideal world and adverse circumstances arise. We see him here displaying all the qualities of all the best speakers.ĭuring preliminary chats with my trainees, I regularly hear the protestation that they’re “ok” when lucky enough to be dealing with subject matter they know really well, but when ordered to deliver a presentation on something of which they have scant knowledge they are less good. I did more than check details on that previous post, I re-read it and will take back not a word. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |