THE ART OF SPEAKING 3

THE ART OF SPEAKING 3 

Criteria in choice of speaker[s]                                         

There are a number of criteria that are genuinely irrelevant in the choice. 

1. The person holds a high office and could use his good offices to help our institution. [After a year or so when we try to recall his or her visit to our place, the person disowns knowledge of visiting us. We too would like to forget it but for the fear of wrongly inviting the person again we have to remember the “killer instincts”]. A serious folly of such incompetent speakers is to quote and quote wrongly as once an American President quoted “People should not throw stones if they stay in glass houses”. There was a global jubilation over this inadequacy from the highest office. Some of our speakers are more innovative and would badly paraphrase statements giving the exact opposite of the intended version. Poets and Philosophers are brought to public resentment long after their death by improperly quoting them. 2. Another routine on-going debacle is to try to fix-up speakers when “something has to be done to complete the programme”. The earlier speakers who had agreed to participate would discover unavoidable commitment just some 72 hours before the schedule.

 The organizers have a man hunt through the night. Some potential speakers excuse themselves on learning the theme. Others readily agree to it since for them all themes are of the same value.  They would rely on Shakespeare, Keats, Statistics and Politics besides jokes borrowed from sources known to everyone. They would tell the organizers that “a good speaker should be able to handle any theme”. Our experience with the person would reveal that all those who can handle all themes need not be good as they faithfully “manhandle” the audience in effect.

Another bad dimension of some such speakers is to dwell on politically or emotionally serious sentiments dividing the audience in to rival factions. They sadly disturb the tranquility among fellow human beings. Stupidity is an in-born syndrome with them. Having invited them to be our guests, the question looming large would be “Who is stupid?” The answer would be more embarrassing than the actual event and the organizers try to take solace by saying ‘everybody can not be a good speaker’ though nobody on the occasion was good. There are a number of facets that render the event dismal. Lack of punctuality in adhering to schedules has a major demoralizing effect on the audience. On most such occasions, the people fritter away preferring something better than sitting idle. Another problem faced by the audience is the bad seating arrangements and poor acoustics at the venue. More disturbance arises from bad pronunciations like bublic [public], temparavary [temporary] Pibravary [February] and many other inabilities. These prove a nuisance to the listeners and they sag in to slumber. These are just some common ways by which speakers invite the wrath of the audience. Ironically, they never mend their ways even after years. Obviously they assume perfection upon selves.

Under-rate the audience based on a visit to US. A good speaker would choose to be accurate and would avoid irrelevant references to personal trips.

What makes a speech good?

After all, a good speech is one which “reaches” the audience as acceptable. The notion of acceptability suggested here is restricted to the extent that the listeners feel rewarded or at least happy to have sat through the session. Like any message, the extent to which the recipients feel enthused or kindled to ponder over, is a measure of success. However, despite the divided taste among people, a broad acceptability is the hall mark of a good speech. Some are delighted, some are happy and a vast majority acknowledges the quality.  Therefore, it is obvious that people are unbiased in accepting quality. At best they may differ in minor details of the proposals made.

TO CONTINUE …………..