« Can you be an objective advocate of ideas? | Main | The "purple cow" of presentation design firms »

December 13, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b64669e200d83425fcf853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Talking at them vs. talking with them:

Comments

alan

Unless I missed it, it’s a shame that you took no stance to the “meat of the content.” Surly it’s a question of the dignity of man, how can one not agree? Alan.

marylyn donahue

Interesting it wasn't planned--Pinter's doctor forbid him to make the trip because of his health. What he did then as a man of theater was to create a speech. It now exists in space as an event making it all the more---not so much powerful--as effective. Because it is "performed" because he is a trained actor, the content is humanized, felt. On the page the speech comes off often 'sounding' like a polemic. To 'see' the speech staged (because it is, the red blanket draped over his knees, the wheel chair, the lighting...his gestures) it engages our emotions--whatever they may be---we are interested in the character--Pinter, the man. We wonder: Can he walk, is he in pain, is he dying? This gives what he says about truth (because the subject is in fact truth) more import.

I kept asking friends if they had seen it no one had. Those who read the speech in the newspaper were not as taken ---even if they shared the same point of view. Those who 'saw' the speech on video were knocked out.

public speaking tips

The speech was bad to the degree that i couldn't wtach the second half of the video.

http://public-speaking-tips1.blogspot.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

Get the books

TEDx Talks



Subscribe

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    .