I'm writing this blog entry just to take a break from a really horrible chore:
I'm in the second day of what I hope will be a two-day job of converting a book chapter I wrote on executive communication into a speech I'm giving next month in Copenhagen.
The process invovles larding up my tight prose with really explicit transitions, gross repetitions and just plain air and space so it'll be comprehensible and conversational—especially so, to an audience of Danes.
Come to think of it, though I'm rarely bored when writing prose, I'm almost always slightly bored when writing a speech. I think one of the things I like best about writing is the puzzle of being as spare as possible. And if that's what you like, speechwriting isn't your favorite gig.
Anybody share that feeling? Happy to chat, as this chore has turned me into an ADD addled freak. I'll be checking my Comments every two minutes.
Comments (7)
I totally agree. I often can't/won't read a blog item that is much longer than 2-3 paragraphs, present company excluded of course. If you can't say it simply, chances are you haven't thought through it enough to start writing.
I talk on the phone in much the same way. Get on, say what I have to say and hang up.
Posted by Eileen | October 25, 2007 11:04 AM
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:04
The problem with nearly all speeches is that they are too detailed and too long, probably to fill time allotments. How silly is that?
Was the Gettysburgh Address writtent to time, or was it written to make an impression?
I've heard a lot of speeches.
I don't remember any of them.
Posted by Diane | October 25, 2007 11:57 AM
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:57
The problem with nearly all speeches is that they are too detailed and too long, probably to fill time allotments. How silly is that?
Was the Gettysburgh Address writtent to time, or was it written to make an impression?
I've heard a lot of speeches.
I don't remember any of them.
Posted by Diane | October 25, 2007 11:58 AM
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:58
"I've heard a lot of speeches. I don't remember any of them."
THAT, my non-swearing friend, is fantastic.
Posted by David Murray | October 25, 2007 11:59 AM
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:59
The duplicate blathering was not intentional, of course. Once was blathering enough.
Posted by Diane | October 25, 2007 12:00 PM
Posted on October 25, 2007 12:00
That one was worth two.
Posted by David Murray | October 25, 2007 12:01 PM
Posted on October 25, 2007 12:01
The RUSH of crafting a piece of writing to be exactly as tight as it should be--well, it's something I try in vain to impart to my classes at the community college.
Speeches are a different breed of cat. They never were INTENDED to give information. They're for cheerleading. Exhorting. Inspiring. Threatening.
All of which activities skate on very thin ice around a big hole called BULLSHITTING.
I'm not saying that speeches always fall into bullshitting--I'm saying that it takes a tremendous effort to make sure they don't.
If I want to impart facts, I'll write them down. If I want to SELL what I've written, I'll give a speech peppered with just enough facts to make it easy for the audience to pretend that we're engaged in a meaningful relationship.
But that's me--and I don't think this is how many people today learn their facts or get their information. What I see is that they learn 100 percent of what they "know" from TALK: televised speeches (of candidates, scientists, artists, etc.), TV talk shows, talk radio, and blogs (which are just talk written out). Our culture has skipped over the reading part and gone straight to the talk.
And really, haven't we all seen this coming?
Maybe the Golden Age of Speechwriting has returned, now that speeches are not a luxury but a necessity. Writing speeches that don't fall into the bullshit hole and do present bona fide information IN WAYS THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL ACTUALLY REMEMBER--maybe this is the next big challenge for corporate communicators.
Posted by Jane Greer | October 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Posted on October 26, 2007 10:44