Michelle Obama: The written word and the spoken word
Every other commentator has noted the obvious about Michelle Obama's speech last night, but I have a few hopefully unusual observations. One of the pieces of advice I give to my students about writing is as follows: whenever you write something, read it aloud. If you cannot read your paper aloud without disturbing a sleeping roommate-- we all know when college students really write their papers-- imagine a speaker's voice in your head.
Marshall McLuhan's famous aphorism was that "the medium is the message," and while too simplistic to be literally true, the observation is important. The written word is different from the spoken word. What works in written text may not always be what works speaking to a small audience, and what works when speaking to a small audience may not be what works when speaking to a stadium. And figuring out what works when speaking to a camera to be broadcast to a virtual convention? Well, that's a whole different can o' beans.
And yet, many of my favorite writers are writers whose voices would work when spoken aloud. That is why I advise my students to read their papers aloud. Consider, then, some of the greatest political orators. Martin Luther King, Jr. Winston Churchill. Study their speeches. Not just as live performances, but as written text. They still work. We can read them, and appreciate them as written text.
Now go and read Michelle Obama's speech.
It still works, doesn't it?
Yes, speechwriters are involved in any such endeavor, but if you cannot recognize Michelle's unique voice by now, you haven't been paying attention. She is a public figure, she speaks publicly, and whatever involvement speechwriters may have had, that speech was in her voice. It is how she speaks anyway. In contrast, Melania Trump's speechwriter plagiarized her at the 2016 Republican Convention in 2016. Here's a story quoting me about it. And Donald? Take away his speechwriters, and all he can do is fall back on a repetitive set of kindergarten-level insults, and stock phrases like, "we'll see what happens." Donald Trump can't even pass the Turing Test.
Michelle Obama's speech, though, was a demonstration of the limitations of McLuhan's aphorism. It works as written text and as spoken word. To observe this is to take nothing away from Obama's oratory technique, nor the value of it. She's good. Very good. I am simply observing that the written text preserves the value, and the performance demonstrates how a written text can be constructed in such a way as to bridge the McLuhan gap.
In contrast, consider Dwight Eisenhower. He was considered a poor wordsmith, yet much of that assessment came from analysis of the written text. He could interact with people in such a way that his words connected, when spoken, yet without his intonations and inflections, the written text fell flat. He even used the perception of being inarticulate to his strategic advantage, according to Fred Greenstein in The Hidden Hand Presidency. When he didn't want to answer a question, he would mangle his words, and the press would write it off as Ike being Ike.
Back when Bush 43 was President, I used to say that if we could get him drinking again, he'd say, "NU-CLE-AR." In contrast, Trump brags about passing a dementia test rather than trying to hide the fact that he needed to take one.
Then, we come back to Michelle Obama, and yes, she was likely the primary writer. As text, as spoken word, or however you choose to analyze it, it works.
Be impressed.
Marshall McLuhan's famous aphorism was that "the medium is the message," and while too simplistic to be literally true, the observation is important. The written word is different from the spoken word. What works in written text may not always be what works speaking to a small audience, and what works when speaking to a small audience may not be what works when speaking to a stadium. And figuring out what works when speaking to a camera to be broadcast to a virtual convention? Well, that's a whole different can o' beans.
And yet, many of my favorite writers are writers whose voices would work when spoken aloud. That is why I advise my students to read their papers aloud. Consider, then, some of the greatest political orators. Martin Luther King, Jr. Winston Churchill. Study their speeches. Not just as live performances, but as written text. They still work. We can read them, and appreciate them as written text.
Now go and read Michelle Obama's speech.
It still works, doesn't it?
Yes, speechwriters are involved in any such endeavor, but if you cannot recognize Michelle's unique voice by now, you haven't been paying attention. She is a public figure, she speaks publicly, and whatever involvement speechwriters may have had, that speech was in her voice. It is how she speaks anyway. In contrast, Melania Trump's speechwriter plagiarized her at the 2016 Republican Convention in 2016. Here's a story quoting me about it. And Donald? Take away his speechwriters, and all he can do is fall back on a repetitive set of kindergarten-level insults, and stock phrases like, "we'll see what happens." Donald Trump can't even pass the Turing Test.
Michelle Obama's speech, though, was a demonstration of the limitations of McLuhan's aphorism. It works as written text and as spoken word. To observe this is to take nothing away from Obama's oratory technique, nor the value of it. She's good. Very good. I am simply observing that the written text preserves the value, and the performance demonstrates how a written text can be constructed in such a way as to bridge the McLuhan gap.
In contrast, consider Dwight Eisenhower. He was considered a poor wordsmith, yet much of that assessment came from analysis of the written text. He could interact with people in such a way that his words connected, when spoken, yet without his intonations and inflections, the written text fell flat. He even used the perception of being inarticulate to his strategic advantage, according to Fred Greenstein in The Hidden Hand Presidency. When he didn't want to answer a question, he would mangle his words, and the press would write it off as Ike being Ike.
Back when Bush 43 was President, I used to say that if we could get him drinking again, he'd say, "NU-CLE-AR." In contrast, Trump brags about passing a dementia test rather than trying to hide the fact that he needed to take one.
Then, we come back to Michelle Obama, and yes, she was likely the primary writer. As text, as spoken word, or however you choose to analyze it, it works.
Be impressed.
Comments
Post a Comment