<h3><SPAN name="CHAPTER_XVI" id="CHAPTER_XVI"></SPAN>CHAPTER XVI</h3>
<h4>METHODS OF DELIVERY</h4>
<p>The crown, the consummation, of the discourse is its delivery.
Toward it all preparation looks, for it the audience waits, by
it the speaker is judged.... All the forces of the orator's life
converge in his oratory. The logical acuteness with which he
marshals the facts around his theme, the rhetorical facility
with which he orders his language, the control to which he has
attained in the use of his body as a single organ of expression,
whatever richness of acquisition and experience are his—these
all are now incidents; <i>the fact</i> is the sending of his message
home to his hearers.... The hour of delivery is the "supreme,
inevitable hour" for the orator. It is this fact that makes lack
of adequate preparation such an impertinence. And it is this
that sends such thrills of indescribable joy through the
orator's whole being when he has achieved a success—it is like
the mother forgetting her pangs for the joy of bringing a son
into the world.</p>
<p class='author'>—J.B.E., <i>How to Attract and Hold an Audience</i>.</p>
<p>There are four fundamental methods of delivering an address; all others
are modifications of one or more of these: reading from manuscript,
committing the written speech and speaking from memory, speaking from
notes, and extemporaneous speech. It is impossible to say which form of
delivery is best for all speakers in all circumstances—in deciding for
yourself you should consider the occasion, the nature of the audience,
the character of your subject, and your own limitations of time and
ability. However, it is worth while warning you not to be lenient in
self-exaction. Say to yourself courageously: What <SPAN name="Page_172" id="Page_172"></SPAN>others can do, I can
attempt. A bold spirit conquers where others flinch, and a trying task
challenges pluck.</p>
<p><span class="u"><i>Reading from Manuscript</i></span></p>
<p>This method really deserves short shrift in a book on public speaking,
for, delude yourself as you may, public reading is not public speaking.
Yet there are so many who grasp this broken reed for support that we
must here discuss the "read speech"—apologetic misnomer as it is.</p>
<p>Certainly there are occasions—among them, the opening of Congress, the
presentation of a sore question before a deliberative body, or a
historical commemoration—when it may seem not alone to the "orator" but
to all those interested that the chief thing is to express certain
thoughts in precise language—in language that <i>must</i> not be either
misunderstood or misquoted. At such times oratory is unhappily elbowed
to a back bench, the manuscript is solemnly withdrawn from the capacious
inner pocket of the new frock coat, and everyone settles himself
resignedly, with only a feeble flicker of hope that the so-called speech
may not be as long as it is thick. The words may be golden, but the
hearers' (?) eyes are prone to be leaden, and in about one instance out
of a hundred does the perpetrator really deliver an impressive address.
His excuse is his apology—he is not to be blamed, as a rule, for some
one decreed that it would be dangerous to cut loose from manuscript
moorings and take his audience with him on a really delightful sail.</p>
<p>One great trouble on such "great occasions" is that the essayist—for
such he is—has been chosen not because <SPAN name="Page_173" id="Page_173"></SPAN>of his speaking ability but
because his grandfather fought in a certain battle, or his constituents
sent him to Congress, or his gifts in some line of endeavor other than
speaking have distinguished him.</p>
<p>As well choose a surgeon from his ability to play golf. To be sure, it
always interests an audience to see a great man; because of his eminence
they are likely to listen to his words with respect, perhaps with
interest, even when droned from a manuscript. But how much more
effective such a deliverance would be if the papers were cast aside!</p>
<p>Nowhere is the read-address so common as in the pulpit—the pulpit, that
in these days least of all can afford to invite a handicap. Doubtless
many clergymen prefer finish to fervor—let them choose: they are rarely
men who sway the masses to acceptance of their message. What they gain
in precision and elegance of language they lose in force.</p>
<p>There are just four motives that can move a man to read his address or
sermon:</p>
<p>1. Laziness is the commonest. Enough said. Even Heaven cannot make a
lazy man efficient.</p>
<p>2. A memory so defective that he really cannot speak without reading.
Alas, he is not speaking when he is reading, so his dilemma is
painful—and not to himself alone. But no man has a right to assume that
his memory is utterly bad until he has buckled down to memory
culture—and failed. A weak memory is oftener an excuse than a reason.</p>
<p>3. A genuine lack of time to do more than write the speech. There are
such instances—but they do not occur <SPAN name="Page_174" id="Page_174"></SPAN>every week! The disposition of
your time allows more flexibility than you realize. Motive 3 too often
harnesses up with Motive 1.</p>
<p>4. A conviction that the speech is too important to risk forsaking the
manuscript. But, if it is vital that every word should be so precise,
the style so polished, and the thoughts so logical, that the preacher
must write the sermon entire, is not the message important enough to
warrant extra effort in perfecting its delivery? It is an insult to a
congregation and disrespectful to Almighty God to put the phrasing of a
message above the message itself. To reach the hearts of the hearers the
sermon must be delivered—it is only half delivered when the speaker
cannot utter it with original fire and force, when he merely repeats
words that were conceived hours or weeks before and hence are like
champagne that has lost its fizz. The reading preacher's eyes are tied
down to his manuscript; he cannot give the audience the benefit of his
expression. How long would a play fill a theater if the actors held
their cue-books in hand and read their parts? Imagine Patrick Henry
reading his famous speech; Peter-the-Hermit, manuscript in hand,
exhorting the crusaders; Napoleon, constantly looking at his papers,
addressing the army at the Pyramids; or Jesus reading the Sermon on the
Mount! These speakers were so full of their subjects, their general
preparation had been so richly adequate, that there was no necessity for
a manuscript, either to refer to or to serve as "an outward and visible
sign" of their preparedness. No event was ever so dignified that it
required an <i>artificial</i> attempt at speech making. Call an essay by its
<SPAN name="Page_175" id="Page_175"></SPAN>right name, but never call it a speech. Perhaps the most dignified of
events is a supplication to the Creator. If you ever listened to the
reading of an original prayer you must have felt its superficiality.</p>
<p>Regardless of what the theories may be about manuscript delivery, the
fact remains that it does not work out with efficiency. <i>Avoid it
whenever at all possible.</i></p>
<p><span class="u"><i>Committing the Written Speech and Speaking from Memory</i></span></p>
<p>This method has certain points in its favor. If you have time and
leisure, it is possible to polish and rewrite your ideas until they are
expressed in clear, concise terms. Pope sometimes spent a whole day in
perfecting one couplet. Gibbon consumed twenty years gathering material
for and rewriting the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Although
you cannot devote such painstaking preparation to a speech, you should
take time to eliminate useless words, crowd whole paragraphs into a
sentence and choose proper illustrations. Good speeches, like plays, are
not written; they are rewritten. The National Cash Register Company
follows this plan with their most efficient selling organization: they
require their salesmen to memorize verbatim a selling talk. They
maintain that there is one best way of putting their selling arguments,
and they insist that each salesman use this ideal way rather than employ
any haphazard phrases that may come into his mind at the moment.</p>
<p>The method of writing and committing has been adopted by many noted
speakers; Julius Cæsar, Robert Ingersoll, and, on some occasions,
Wendell Phillips, were distin<SPAN name="Page_176" id="Page_176"></SPAN>guished examples. The wonderful effects
achieved by famous actors were, of course, accomplished through the
delivery of memorized lines.</p>
<p>The inexperienced speaker must be warned before attempting this method
of delivery that it is difficult and trying. It requires much skill to
make it efficient. The memorized lines of the young speaker will usually
<i>sound</i> like memorized words, and repel.</p>
<p>If you want to hear an example, listen to a department store
demonstrator repeat her memorized lingo about the newest furniture
polish or breakfast food. It requires training to make a memorized
speech sound fresh and spontaneous, and, unless you have a fine native
memory, in each instance the finished product necessitates much labor.
Should you forget a part of your speech or miss a few words, you are
liable to be so confused that, like Mark Twain's guide in Rome, you will
be compelled to repeat your lines from the beginning.</p>
<p>On the other hand, you may be so taken up with trying to recall your
written words that you will not abandon yourself to the spirit of your
address, and so fail to deliver it with that spontaneity which is so
vital to forceful delivery.</p>
<p>But do not let these difficulties frighten you. If committing seems best
to you, give it a faithful trial. Do not be deterred by its pitfalls,
but by resolute practise avoid them.</p>
<p>One of the best ways to rise superior to these difficulties is to do as
Dr. Wallace Radcliffe often does: commit without writing the speech,
making practically all the <SPAN name="Page_177" id="Page_177"></SPAN>preparation mentally, without putting pen to
paper—a laborious but effective way of cultivating both mind and
memory.</p>
<p>You will find it excellent practise, both for memory and delivery, to
commit the specimen speeches found in this volume and declaim them, with
all attention to the principles we have put before you. William Ellery
Channing, himself a distinguished speaker, years ago had this to say of
practise in declamation:</p>
<p>"Is there not an amusement, having an affinity with the drama, which
might be usefully introduced among us? I mean, Recitation. A work of
genius, recited by a man of fine taste, enthusiasm, and powers of
elocution, is a very pure and high gratification. Were this art
cultivated and encouraged, great numbers, now insensible to the most
beautiful compositions, might be waked up to their excellence and
power."</p>
<p><span class="u"><i>Speaking from Notes</i></span></p>
<p>The third, and the most popular method of delivery, is probably also the
best one for the beginner. Speaking from notes is not ideal delivery,
but we learn to swim in shallow water before going out beyond the ropes.</p>
<p>Make a definite plan for your discourse (for a fuller discussion see
Chapter XVIII) and set down the points somewhat in the fashion of a
lawyer's brief, or a preacher's outline. Here is a sample of very simple
notes:</p>
<p>ATTENTION<br/>
<br/>
I. <span class="smcap">Introduction</span>.<br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Attention indispensable to the performance of any</span><br/>
<span style="margin-left: 2em;">great work. <i>Anecdote</i>.</span><br/>
<br/><SPAN name="Page_178" id="Page_178"></SPAN>
II. <span class="smcap">Defined And Illustrated</span>.<br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1. From common observation.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2. From the lives of great men {Carlyle, Robert E. Lee.}</span><br/>
<br/>
III. <span class="smcap">Its Relation To Other Mental Powers</span>.<br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1. Reason.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2. Imagination.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">3. Memory.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">4. Will. <i>Anecdote</i>.</span><br/>
<br/>
IV. <span class="smcap">Attention May Be Cultivated</span>.<br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1. Involuntary attention.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2. Voluntary attention. <i>Examples</i>.</span><br/>
<br/>
V. <span class="smcap">Conclusion</span>.<br/>
<br/>
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The consequences of inattention and of attention.</span><br/></p>
<p>Few briefs would be so precise as this one, for with experience a
speaker learns to use little tricks to attract his eye—he may
underscore a catch-word heavily, draw a red circle around a pivotal
idea, enclose the key-word of an anecdote in a wavy-lined box, and so on
indefinitely. These points are worth remembering, for nothing so eludes
the swift-glancing eye of the speaker as the sameness of typewriting, or
even a regular pen-script. So unintentional a thing as a blot on the
page may help you to remember a big "point" in your brief—perhaps by
association of ideas.</p>
<p>An inexperienced speaker would probably require fuller notes than the
specimen given. Yet that way lies danger, for the complete manuscript is
but a short remove <SPAN name="Page_179" id="Page_179"></SPAN>from the copious outline. Use as few notes as
possible.</p>
<p>They may be necessary for the time being, but do not fail to look upon
them as a necessary evil; and even when you lay them before you, refer
to them only when compelled to do so. Make your notes as full as you
please in preparation, but by all means condense them for platform use.</p>
<p><span class="u"><i>Extemporaneous Speech</i></span></p>
<p>Surely this is the ideal method of delivery. It is far and away the most
popular with the audience, and the favorite method of the most efficient
speakers.</p>
<p>"Extemporaneous speech" has sometimes been made to mean unprepared
speech, and indeed it is too often precisely that; but in no such sense
do we recommend it strongly to speakers old and young. On the contrary,
to speak well without notes requires all the preparation which we
discussed so fully in the chapter on "Fluency," while yet relying upon
the "inspiration of the hour" for some of your thoughts and much of your
language. You had better remember, however, that the most effective
inspiration of the hour is the inspiration you yourself bring to it,
bottled up in your spirit and ready to infuse itself into the audience.</p>
<p>If you extemporize you can get much closer to your audience. In a sense,
they appreciate the task you have before you and send out their
sympathy. Extemporize, and you will not have to stop and fumble around
amidst your notes—you can keep your eye afire with your message and
hold your audience with your very glance. You <SPAN name="Page_180" id="Page_180"></SPAN>yourself will feel their
response as you read the effects of your warm, spontaneous words,
written on their countenances.</p>
<p>Sentences written out in the study are liable to be dead and cold when
resurrected before the audience. When you create as you speak you
conserve all the native fire of your thought. You can enlarge on one
point or omit another, just as the occasion or the mood of the audience
may demand. It is not possible for every speaker to use this, the most
difficult of all methods of delivery, and least of all can it be used
successfully without much practise, but it is the ideal towards which
all should strive.</p>
<p>One danger in this method is that you may be led aside from your subject
into by-paths. To avoid this peril, firmly stick to your mental outline.
Practise speaking from a memorized brief until you gain control. Join a
debating society—talk, <i>talk</i>, <i>TALK</i>, and always extemporize. You may
"make a fool of yourself" once or twice, but is that too great a price
to pay for success?</p>
<p>Notes, like crutches, are only a sign of weakness. Remember that the
power of your speech depends to some extent upon the view your audience
holds of you. General Grant's words as president were more powerful than
his words as a Missouri farmer. If you would appear in the light of an
authority, be one. Make notes on your brain instead of on paper.</p>
<p><span class="u"><i>Joint Methods of Delivery</i></span></p>
<p>A modification of the second method has been adopted by many great
speakers, particularly lecturers who are <SPAN name="Page_181" id="Page_181"></SPAN>compelled to speak on a wide
variety of subjects day after day; such speakers often commit their
addresses to memory but keep their manuscripts in flexible book form
before them, turning several pages at a time. They feel safer for having
a sheet-anchor to windward—but it is an anchor, nevertheless, and
hinders rapid, free sailing, though it drag never so lightly.</p>
<p>Other speakers throw out a still lighter anchor by keeping before them a
rather full outline of their written and committed speech.</p>
<p>Others again write and commit a few important parts of the address—the
introduction, the conclusion, some vital argument, some pat
illustration—and depend on the hour for the language of the rest. This
method is well adapted to speaking either with or without notes.</p>
<p>Some speakers read from manuscript the most important parts of their
speeches and utter the rest extemporaneously.</p>
<p>Thus, what we have called "joint methods of delivery" are open to much
personal variation. You must decide for yourself which is best for you,
for the occasion, for your subject, for your audience—for these four
factors all have their individual claims.</p>
<p>Whatever form you choose, do not be so weakly indifferent as to prefer
the easy way—choose the <i>best</i> way, whatever it cost you in time and
effort. And of this be assured: only the practised speaker can hope to
gain <i>both</i> conciseness of argument and conviction in manner, polish of
language and power in delivery, finish of style and fire in utterance.</p>
<p><SPAN name="Page_182" id="Page_182"></SPAN></p>
<h3>QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES</h3>
<p>1. Which in your judgment is the most suitable of delivery for you? Why?</p>
<p>2. What objections can you offer to, (<i>a</i>) memorizing the entire speech;
(<i>b</i>) reading from manuscript; (<i>c</i>) using notes; (<i>d</i>) speaking from
memorized outline or notes; (<i>e</i>e) any of the "joint methods"?</p>
<p>3. What is there to commend in delivering a speech in any of the
foregoing methods?</p>
<p>4. Can you suggest any combination of methods that you have found
efficacious?</p>
<p>5. What methods, according to your observation, do most successful
speakers use?</p>
<p>6. Select some topic from the list on page <SPAN href='#Page_123'>123</SPAN>, narrow the theme so as
to make it specific (see page <SPAN href='#Page_122'>122</SPAN>), and deliver a short address,
utilizing the four methods mentioned, in four different deliveries of
the speech.</p>
<p>7. Select one of the joint methods and apply it to the delivery of the
same address.</p>
<p>8. Which method do you prefer, and why?</p>
<p>9. From the list of subjects in the Appendix select a theme and deliver
a five-minute address without notes, but make careful preparation
without putting your thoughts on paper.</p>
<p>NOTE: It is earnestly hoped that instructors will not pass this stage of
the work without requiring of their students much practise in the
delivery of original speeches, in the manner that seems, after some
experiment, to be best suited to the student's gifts. Students who are
studying alone should be equally exacting in demand upon <SPAN name="Page_183" id="Page_183"></SPAN>themselves.
One point is most important: It is easy to learn to read a speech,
therefore it is much more urgent that the pupil should have much
practise in speaking from notes and speaking without notes. At this
stage, pay more attention to manner than to matter—the succeeding
chapters take up the composition of the address. Be particularly
insistent upon <i>frequent</i> and <i>thorough</i> review of the principles of
delivery discussed in the preceding chapters.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><SPAN name="Page_184" id="Page_184"></SPAN></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />