This isn’t something I’m great at. It’s something I would like to be great at. It’s separate from giving speeches, which adds a whole host of its own difficulties.
I hope in writing this, it will help me communicate and hence further solidify my understanding of the topic. Imagine teaching a course where you’re shit at the content. I digress.
My current strategy seems to somewhat resemble these patterns.
Speaking candidly and authentically
Speech is more ‘loose’ than writing. In casual conversation people stumble, slur, and self- correct frequently. In writing there is an expectation that thoughts are more succinct, and structurally correct. Speech writing sits somewhere in between. Your expression doesn’t have to follow an essay format - you are welcome to dart between related ideas. Say what you need to say, and say it from your heart. However, don’t speak aimlessly. A speech has a purpose. Execute on the purpose.
Finding the flow and rhythm
I believe languages reflect cultural thought patterns and attitudes. Some languages tend to be direct, grammatically straightforward, and direct. Others are typically subtle, flowery or nuanced. Regardless, there are many ways to express the same underlying core idea in each language.
On top of this, the writer themself is free to further influence their expression through their choice in words. The way someone says things - their flow, pacing, or rhythm (used loosely here,) can shift how the message is received.
Take for instance, the following cute example I remember recently. A friend had mistakenly asked if we were still planning to follow through attending an event, where the date had already passed over a year ago. My first immediate sarcastic response in my mind was, “Yeah, meet you at the time machine.” I thought for a moment longer, and changed the response to, “Yeah, meet you in front of the time machine.” I liked this better.
Are the responses the same? Different? In my view, the underlying message is the same, but the difference in delivery slightly changes how we respond. The former is fine as it stands, but by changing a few more words here and there, the impact feels greater. Meeting “in front of” rather than “at” the time machine adds a level of specificity that makes the impossible situation more believable. If I add too many specifiers however, it begins to detract from the core message that we can’t meet up at some time in the past. This is what I mean by rhythm and pacing. Find the balance that you like, that is how you like to say things. What “feels” better to say?
This isn’t unique to speech writing. I think this applies to writing and communication in general. It’s a small thing. But the small differences in how we express ourselves reflects our character and how we make choices.
Clarity above all
When in doubt, simple word do trick. Saying less often says more. Fewer aptly chosen words accomplish communicating the core message to the same degree that more words can. Start with this, and then feel free to hone in - to polish - the rock.
The inverse seems to never be true. Starting with all the fluff without a good underlying, clear message, is too abstract and vague to understand. People will tune out of what you’re actually saying. Think how “business buzzwords” often have a bad wrap. Because “optimising the multiple interconnected synergies between upstream and silos” means fuck all, but “speeding up the communication process between departments,” actually starts to mean something. You get the idea. I’d rather speak using the vernacular of a 12 year old well, than a literary genius terribly. When you write speeches, the necessity is even greater. The message must be clear.
What do I think I need work on, speechwriting wise?
- Clarity in expression
- Clarity in purpose
- Going deep enough, not being lazy with developing my ideas
- Staying relatable to the audience, and then connecting more
- Playing with tools - humour, sadness, emotion, logic, passion