THE ART OF SPEAKING
Hitherto we have looked at varied facets of Education, Communication, Human relations and a number of Human emotions as well. On quite a few occasions I have insisted on the values of communication. Of the different forms of communication, the one rendered as speech is important and complicated. The others - written form and the spoken form in Radio or TV have the scope for correction even after the item is recorded. Therefore “Speech” delivered live to the audience has intricacies, advantages and difficulties to the speakers. Still, what matters in the final analysis about a speech is how comfortable were the audience through that speech. Very rarely does one come across a situation when a speech is said to have been good all through. It is a clear case of the speaker’s ability for the occasion. When the person has not appropriately bestowed attention on to the ingredients that conform to the status of “wider acceptability” among the listeners, it is bound to be unimpressive. Often, well prepared and properly delivered speeches go down very well with the audience. Sometimes an initially promising effort ends up in disgust as the speaker transgresses limits of time, decency of utterance or tries to preach morals of which the very person is a known violator. Another cause of failure for a speech could be a disproportionate importance to data or enormity of technical details in explaining a process. To strike a level of balance for the entire audience to stay comfortable is the basic requirement for a speaker, setting aside the natural inclination of exhibiting the knowledge acquired. What counts here, is the wisdom of the speaker and not the knowledge of the individual. Honestly, a knowledgeable person would know how to convey an idea. The not-so knowledgeable are eager to “create” an impression of supremacy. In this process, an idea is easily confused instead of being conveyed. It is for every speaker to precisely “plan” what has to be done and be ready to deviate meaningfully if the occasion permits. Let us try to consider the issue in detail.
Background: The levels of expectation from the audience for a speaker, is generally high in sharp contrast to that of the reader for a printed matter. One of the reasons is a reader has freedom to repeatedly read a passage and try to gather the message. The second advantage is the facility of availing of the time without having to adhere to any specific time schedule. In other words, to listen to a speaker the listener has to reschedule the other works. Therefore, it is understandable that the speakers have a moral duty to give the best possible on all occasions. At the same time, the speaker enjoys the scope of precisely drawing attention to definite items during the course of a speech. This provides the real advantage of “driving home” the points. A reader may not pick up the information unless [s]he pays uniform attention to the entire matter in print. By every reckoning, a speaker can do greater justice than an author. But, do all speakers sustain these? The Situation: For anything in life, effort is the basis. To strive for an effective session of speech, it is essential that the speakers do not assume the wisdom of humanity up on themselves. Instead, they should concede that there may be better intellectuals among the audience. Any gathering can not be taken for granted. Quite often speakers make the basic folly of badly judging the audience. They tend to assume that others may not be able to do as good. They fail to do the homework and try to ‘manage’ at the podium with mere statistical data on items like the scale of poverty or the huge funds allocated in the plan period etc..
To continue Prof.K ,Ranan
No comments:
Post a Comment