I have pondered doing this thread several times, but always backed off as I didn't want to seem unduly critical to people who have a hard, and serious, vocation, on what seems to be a triviality. It's actually an experience that happened to somebody else, not me, that caused me to go ahead and post this.
I'll start with a further disclaimer. A lot like writing, public speaking is probably a gift. You either have it, or you don't, but the ability to learn it is limited.
Some people, as part of their vocations, have to address the public, or at least have to deliver addresses fairly frequently. Some of those people are great speakers, others are awful, and there's all manner in between. Most people who have to do it a lot, at least learn how to be fairly effective, although amazingly, some never do.
Sometimes they do it routinely badly.
And so hence this post, which has this message for public speakers.
Three General Rules and some general advice.
1. Don't read to your audience, save for a quote from somebody you want to emphasize.
2. Don't speak too long.
3. Get to the point.
Herb Stern, a famous trial lawyer, counselled in his books and videos on trial that the proper structure of a trial is thus:
- Tell them what you are going to tell them.
- Tell them.
- Tell them what you told them.
When I was a high school student and took journalism, the rule for writing a news story, which was at that time widely observed by reporters (less so now) was.
- Tell the reader the basic facts in the first paragraph.
- Expand on the story.
- Sum up the story again in the last paragraph.
While one example here is oral, and one is written, they both address the same thing. A type of public address, not a story, or novel, or history. It's conveying information that needs to be conveyed and remembered effectively. The goal isn't to unstring a mystery, or to engage in a compelling story, although both of those can occur, but to deliver a compelling message.
A lot of people don't do that, and they are particularly bad at it if they have a captive audience.
Reading to the audience.
I hate being read to.
I can read for myself, and really well too. I've been able to read since before I went to school. Since my very first days at school, I hated to be read to and would just rather have had the book. Chances are you aren't reading in a voice that's compelling, and if I have the text, I've already read far ahead of you.
I’m not alone in this.
When the prayer after Communion is concluded, brief announcements to the people may be made, if they are needed.
General Instructions In the Roman Missal, No. 166.
What originally caused me to ponder this was the practice that some priests have of reading massive parts of the weekly bulletin just before the congregation is dismissed. In Catholic terms, the audience is captive. They can't leave, and have the Mass count for a Sunday obligation, by ducking out during hte announcements. So they dutifully sit there.
At this point, I'm supposed to say it's not bad if it's short, but it is. That's why the General Instructions probably only provide for announcements "if they are needed". 99% of the time, they are not needed.
The Mass is organized in a certain fashion for a reason. It's not organized like a trial, as noted, above, but its organization is intentional. After opening prayers, on most obligatory days, a reading from the Old Testament is first, followed by a reading from the New Testament, followed by the main reading for the day. Some really effective homilists can tie all three together, but usually the homily is on the principal Gospel reading.
Almost always, that reading leaves those in the pews pondering it. It should. Communion and prayers follow, but the Mass then shortly wraps up. If well delivered, the parishioners will leave the Mass with the homily on their minds. And they should.
They won't if there are a lot of announcements. Even a single announcement can do it.
In a trial, the plaintiff goes first, the defendant second, in opening statements. In closing ones, however, the plaintiff goes first, the defendant second, and the plaintiff very last. In oral arguments in front of a judge, the movant goes first, the respondent second, and then the movant concludes, although recently a lot of newer judges don't really do it that way.
The reason for that structure is that the plaintiff, or the movant, has the burden, and the thought is that they should have the last word for the audience to consider. They take that with them.
The wouldn't if the movant concluded with "before you leave, I have some announcements".
It's one thing if you have received a serious message to go out thinking about it. You might think about it all day, or for days, and you might take it to heart. But, the human mind being what it is, if there's an announcement about the Knights of Columbus pancake breakfast, or some speaker coming to talk to married people of the parish or the youth group recruiting, that's what you'll remember. Indeed, subtly, you'll get the unintended message that was the important message of the day. There may have been a somber warning about the difficulty for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but if there's a series of messages about speakers, events, and the like, it's gone. You'll remember the last thing you heard, and if it doesn't apply to you, or it's trivial, you'll just dismiss that.
Every parish I've ever been to published a weekly bulletin. Most now have them online as well. All the same material should be in the bulletin. It's there for the exact same reason it was announced. Given that, almost all announcements are wholly unnecessary. Indeed, if you really want to emphasize them, don't read them. Pretty soon somebody will miss one and be mad, and get the message "did you read the bulletin?"
Indeed, I've had the experience of somebody who routinely, in a different context, distributing an important document and then going around harassing people about it, always starting off with "did you read my memo?". Last time I was asked that, I simply replied "no". When the speaker asked, stunned, "why not?", I replied, I knew that you'd be coming around harassing me about it, so why bother?"
They had no answer for that.
To add to it, for at least highly literate people, reading a message that was meant to be read, not delivered orally, is highly insulting.
They're read as the reader fears that the audience won't read them. And they won't if they're read. But that's insulting, as it implies that the audience won't read them or is incapable of reading them. If that's the case, save the cost of publishing a bulletin and don't do it.
The better approach, however, is to simply trust that if people are given something to read, they'll read it.
Now, I know that somebody will immediately think, "but we have that speaker coming in. . . "
Yes, you do, and you may want to emphasize that. If it's really exceptional, it's exceptional. But the youth group recruiting of the same couple that speaks every year about marriage encounter, isn't. At least it is not in my view, and if it is necessary, it should be extremely brief.
Worst of all, in this instance, is something that involves showing a slide who or short movie. The local parish school has one of these annually, and at least it's short and well done, so I can tolerate that. The Bishop's Appeal sometimes has an audio/visual presentation, and it usually has dicey production values. Frankly, I don't think most audio/visuals are effective to start with, unless very well done.
Now I get the messages need to be addressed somehow. And if announcements were short and necessary, I'd get that. Some priests have short ones right before their homily, and that's effective and not disruptive. But at one parish here locally the priest routinely reads darned near the entire bulletin in the form of announcements, meaning they're all likely ignored.
Here I'd note that this is a serial failure of the acceptance of technology. At one time, it probably was the case that announcements had to be oral as there was no bulletin. Then there was. Now there's email. I'm not suggesting that the bulletin be omitted, but weekly email lists would be a good thing to add. People will read those.
Let's not pick just on homilists.
Recently, there's been a trend of judge's holding oral hearings to read their opinions.
This is an amazing return to the way things were several hundred years ago when it was presumed that a large part of the audience that needed to hear an official declaration was probably illiterate. That day has now passed and practice long ago adjusted to that. Now we're going backwards.
I don't know how this trend started, but everyone is getting the written opinion anyhow, and in the era of electronic delivery, it'll be right way. We don't need it read to us. It takes up court and lawyer time. It also adds to costs, as somebody is going to get a bill for the lawyer sitting there and listening to the whole thing.
Additionally, most people, when they read anything of length, start to slog along in a monotone.
This can be a problem even for texts, and there are some, that are meant to be read. Decisions read from the bench are like this. The Judge either wrote them or had a clerk do it, but by and large they read them in a monotone. Almost nobody is acclimated to listening to things like that.
Going back to Mass for a second, most lectors, which I at one tine was, do a really good job of this, but every once and a while, quite rarely, you'll find somebody who isn't. The one that really sticks in my mind was a public school teacher who always sounded like she was addressing little children. I guess that suggests that you should be self-aware of how you sound. I've noted that almost everyone who teaches little children if asked to speak, speaks in that style, which will turn an adult audience off (I'm not the only one who had that reaction in this instance, I'll note).
Interestingly, I've seen two examples from religious speakers that also really stand out that way.
Both examples are from religions which have really distinct speaking styles. In one instance, the style is incredibly dull. I'll not name the religion, but all of their public discourse is delivered in this style, and blisteringly dull. It must not be a deterrent to people being members, or at least it doesn't deter a lot of people, apparently, but for non-members like myself, it's a shock to hear a public speech delivered in a style guaranteed to be flat, slow, and boring. I guess that illustrates the danger of picking up a pattern of speech somewhere and not reexamining it in another context.
Indeed, Vice President Pence, while not a member of that faith, has a pattern of speech that sounds very much like some affected by pastors of some large prominent denominations, and man is he a boring speaker. I have to wonder if he's patterned his delivery off of what he hears in church on Sundays.
In stark contrast, the country's African American denominations have a really engaging, dynamic speaking style for their pastors. It's extremely effective, and African American politicians tend to use it in some parts of the country, which makes their speech interesting and effective as well.
Let me stray from there, for a second, to note that this same phenomenon is why I really doubt the forensics' coach line you hear about how high school or college debate will make you a good speaker. They structure of it is so weird that I have to really doubt it has much use outside itself, although I don't really know that it doesn't.
Which gets to the captive audience syndrome.
Letting Go.
One of the hardest things to do as a speaker is to quit talking.
Pope Francis actually advised that a homily should not be over 8 minutes long about a decade ago, although on that occasion his homily was 17 minutes long. Since then, he's said they shouldn'ttt be over ten minutes long. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe has actually warned its priests that if they go over five minutes, they might have their faculties to speak suspended.
Now, quite frankly, I've rarely seen a Priest give a really long homily in recent years. I've experienced them, but not for decades now, so I don't think this is a problem. What I'm noting here is something else. The Catholic Church, which delivers millions of homilies in a month, gets it in terms of attention span.
I'd also note that some will immediately point out that maybe these are too short and point to the example of Protestant ministers, who apparently run 30 minutes long in comparison. That may be true, but those types of Protestant churches don't have a structured sacrifice of the Mass like Catholic parishes do. That's the main focus of the Mass. For a church that's simply reading something from the Bible, probably the New Testament, 30 minutes actually isn't that long either, although I'd guess it's pushing it. Indeed, at the few non-Catholic influenced Protestant services I've been to, which admittedly were weddings and funerals, the pastors didn't really speak all that long.
Where I really see this abused is in court.
I've heard hundreds, maybe thousands, of oral deliveries by this point in Court, and for the most part, if a lawyer can't make his point in about 15 minutes, he's not going to. This includes opening and closing statements in trials. Nonetheless, I hear lawyers ask for hours for the same all the time. Most judges won't give a person three hours for an opening statement, but the year before last I heard that request made and granted. Funny thing was I heard this granted during a Pre Trial Hearing which I attended while waiting for a jury to come in, in another case, in which the openings and closings were 15 minutes long and the opposing counsel suggested that, to my relief.
Super long deliveries demonstrate either a certain degree of fear or narcissism, in my view. Some go for really long deliveries as they fear the audience isn't going to get it otherwise. If they aren't, the opening and closing isn't going to do it, however. And some ask for really long deliveries, as they feel that they're such impressive speakers that they'll wow the audience. Probably not.
A lot of this, I'd note, is cultural. A lot, but not all.
People often like to note that great speeches of the past were really lengthy and then draw the conclusion that we now have short attention spans, and therefore can't sit still for a long message. Some of that is likely true. At one time, political speeches tended to be longer than they currently are, for instance. And it's sometimes noted that some great speakers of the past tended towards long deliveries. St. Padre Pio, for example, is noted to have given really long homilies of 45 minutes or longer.
Having said that, a person needs to be careful about concluding too much. For one thing, this analysis tends to confuse debates with speeches, and the two are not the same. Looking at the text of actual speeches that we have, not all of them are really all that long. This once again argues against reading something that's lengthy, as doing that grossly exceeds, as a rule, the amount of time that history suggests a person will listen to a single speaker.
A debate, on the other hand, is a conversation, an argument, and people will listen to those as they are dynamic. That's also why people would, in the past, listen to long oral histories, fables or stories. People are wired for that, to an extent. They'll still, in our own day, watch a movie that's 3 or 4 hours long.
That's different from sitting listening to somebody trying to persuade you of something when you aren't allowed to participate. Indeed, any lawyer who has sat through opposing counsel's arguments knows how difficult it is not to interrupt. You are not supposed to, but that's hard to do.
While some arguments are stories, they're still arguments, and most people aren't wired for an hour-long argument that they can't participate in. It's noteworthy that it's long been the case that classroom instruction is rarely over an hour long in length. Radio and television news used to be 15 minutes long before going to 30 minutes, and it's stayed there for the most part, with there being limited exceptions. A person can get away with some deliveries that are an hour long, but not too many. Getting away with one that's more than 30 minutes long is tough.
Where long addresses tend to be common, other forms of delivery are not. That suggests, once again the cultural acclimation to a long delivery. It's sometimes claimed, although I don't know if it is true, that in Africa homilies tend to be quite long. But, by the same token it's still the case in much of rural Africa that the parishioners have walked a long distance to attend Mass, and other forms of communication remain limited. In other words, a villager who walked for an hour or more to get to Mass is probably going to feel cheated if the service is really short. It's not only a Mass for him, but a gathering.
It's unfortunate that for most of us, this is no longer true. We get in our cars, go and then leave, often with a long list of things we imagine we have to do, many of which we will not. This is another topic, really.
For audiences compelled to be there for your address, it's another matter. They have to be there. A jury will, after about 30 minutes, start thinking "is he going to wrap this up, so we can hear the evidence" or "is he going to wrap this up, so we can deliberate". Anyone who has ever been subjected to a speaker who just can't get to the point knows what this is like.
Which brings me to one final thing, get to the point.
There are speakers who are amazingly adept at tying things together for a delivery. The young pastor at the small community Catholic Church here in town is one. I've heard him at least twice delivery homilies that drew from all three readings seamlessly, and all within less than ten minutes. That's a real art, however. More typically, some speakers feel they have to address all the minutia and therefore lose the point entirely.
I've heard arguments made in which the speaker started off, and then starts to fill in the background, and then fills in the background to the background. A person will be ten minutes into their address and actually still be filling in trivial details, many of which have nothing to do with the point of whatever is being addressed, the problem being that the audience now no longer cares what that actually was. Similar, I've heard the "and . . " type of deliveries in which the speaker feels they need to address every argument they have in serial succession, giving the impression they'll never stop.
Perhaps the most distracting of these is the speaker who reaches a natural point to conclude, and then goes on to a second delivery. I've heard a couple of people who routinely did that. They'd have a really good initial delivery, conclude, and then simply start what was a second address. One homilist we used to have, who was otherwise a great Priest, tended to delivery a homily and then a second homily, and then at the end of Mass, in the announcement, an auxiliary homily, none of which were really effectively delivered. But I've heard the same thing in court as well, with a lawyer reaching a point, and then simply starting off on a new one. In that instance, it gives the impression, perhaps accurately, that the lawyer never really knew what the point of the argument was in the first place.
Final thoughts.
This thread is meant to be helpful and not mean, which is partially why I never put it up. I didn't want it to be misunderstood. Additionally, as noted above, I think there's only so much a person can do to help an ineffective speaker, as much of the ability to speak well in public is simply natural.
And I've only mentioned clerics and lawyers here, as they're the ones I commonly hear speak. I don't listen to many political speeches, which perhaps other people frequently do. There are other speaking professions, but I don't encounter them much.
Very few public speakers are major league abusers of these rules, and therefore are likely mostly effective in their deliveries. But small departures can lessen effectiveness. Hence, my advice, which of course will be mostly unread therefore undelivered.
