Regarding literary style...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It moved to television, film, and YouTube.
Though you have me a bit confused. Dramatic oratory is basically dramatic or extremely skilled public speaking, right? Like Martin Luther King Jr's speeches? I wouldn't exactly call that a literary style since speeches like that aren't written in books. Or are you referring to dramatic speeches that are made in books?
Though you have me a bit confused. Dramatic oratory is basically dramatic or extremely skilled public speaking, right? Like Martin Luther King Jr's speeches? I wouldn't exactly call that a literary style since speeches like that aren't written in books. Or are you referring to dramatic speeches that are made in books?
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to... it used to be fairly commonplace, but it's difficult to find a contemporarily written book in which one character speaks continuously for more than a few hundred words whether it is to an in story audience or just to a companion... it makes historical novels (read: Classical Antiquity) written in the last twenty years very difficult for me to enjoy primarily because one of the reasons for being known was oratory skill, and yet I'm not seeing the charisma... :/Lilani said:
But that got me thinking that the art of public speaking is largely lost as far as spontaneity is concerned since there is no speech that is not written and edited half a million times over... and yet commentators will find several holes in it for sources of criticism. (Just an aside...)
Eh, just a change in narrative style I suppose. That's why they're "contemporary"--they don't follow all of the conventions of the past. I imagine writers avoid speeches like that because they can seem fake and unengaging, at least without stopping every now and then to show physical actions like audience reaction, hand gestures, stuff happening with the setting, etc. I feel that way reading Shakespeare--yes, what's written is awesome and all, but in my mind I simply can't comprehend why they'd let such a windbag go on and on unquestioned. And yes I understand Shakespeare is meant to be enjoyed theatrically where you can see the character acting as well, but still. Nobody lets somebody go on and on for 500 words, let's somebody else respond with 700 words, and then closes with another 500 words. And the same with things like the Scarlet Letter. I think the only reason their dialog goes on for so long is because the conventions of speech at the time necessitated it.SckizoBoy said:
And yes there are people who can just pull a great speech out of their ass, but I think it's safe to say even Martin Luther King Jr. started with an idea, wrote it down, and edited to get just the right flow before he actually read it out. You probably won't find a preacher on this earth that just stands up at the pulpit and wings it. Whether or not you realize it, great speeches do require scripting and editing to make them great. Again, there are those select few who under the right circumstances can string those thoughts together well. But it doesn't happen very often, and certainly not as often as a well-edited speech strings thoughts together perfectly. There is an element of improvisation and presentation in there, working with the mood of the audience and all. But for the most part that sort of confidence to improvise can only come from a very well planned script.
We desire to be entertained by interaction over oration these days. This means more characters and less giant speeches.
I tried reading The Last Man a while ago but gave up after maybe 20 pages. There had only been 3 characters introduced and one of them simply would. Not. Shut. Up.
It was not entertaining. I ran into a similar problem with A Tale of Two Cities.
I tried reading The Last Man a while ago but gave up after maybe 20 pages. There had only been 3 characters introduced and one of them simply would. Not. Shut. Up.
It was not entertaining. I ran into a similar problem with A Tale of Two Cities.
[sub][sub]Funny, I was just writing something...[/sub][/sub]
Maybe as a literary device it was overused and there was a subconscious shift away from it. I know for myself I haven't read a character talking out loud for very long unless he's telling a story. Even then there are periodic interruptions and gestures written in. Seems most authors prefer to go into detail by using the voice of god narration, myself included.
So maybe we've just moved away from that? I'm sure we'll bounce back towards it at some point.
I'm thinking that in this age of teleprompters and speech writers the art of making a impassioned speech has kind of vanished from the eyes of this generation. A longwinded speech seems more artificial than inspiring because it is kind of assumed that if it comes from the heart it will be short and simple. That's my guess anyway.SckizoBoy said:
Maybe as a literary device it was overused and there was a subconscious shift away from it. I know for myself I haven't read a character talking out loud for very long unless he's telling a story. Even then there are periodic interruptions and gestures written in. Seems most authors prefer to go into detail by using the voice of god narration, myself included.
So maybe we've just moved away from that? I'm sure we'll bounce back towards it at some point.