JUST FOR LAUGHS - Making Humor a Part of Your Speaking

Humor is just another defense
against the universe.
— Mel Brooks, famous funny person.

Here are some quick tips on using humor in your speeches.

• Don't presume you are incapable of being funny. You can learn to be funny and incorporate humor in your speeches. This is a skill like any others you need to speak.
• Feel free to be funny.Let yourself go. A confident relaxed attitude is the first thing you need to master. Injecting the right humor at the right moment can capture your audience’s attention.
• No need to be Louis C.K. or Jerry Seinfeld. You’re not trying to be a famous comedian. All you want to do is share a funny, positive moment with your audience.
• Find your unique style of humor. It will take time and you will need to be patient, but find out what works for you. As with most other things in this world, everyone’s sense of humor is unique. Look at Jim Carrey vs. Charlie Chaplin vs. Groucho Marx vs. Steven Wright. All of them make us laugh. Do they do it the same way?No. Neither will you!
• No joke works 100 percent of the time. If your humor doesn’t work, don’t draw attention to it; just keep going. People will think it was part of your speech anyway. (BTW, if your joke doesn’t work SEVERAL times, you should think about cutting it!)
• Humor should never exclude. True humor is fun. It does not put down, kid or mock. It makes people feel wonderful, not separate, different, or cut off. The best humor the same underlying truth — that we are all in this together. This also applies to political humor.
• Any of the tips above will backfire on you at one time or another. I guarantee it! Instead, learn from the following quote:

“…The humorist makes fun of himself, but in so doing, he identifies himself with people — that is, people everywhere, not for the purpose of taking them apart, but simply revealing their true nature.” - James Thurber

Academy Awards remind us: Stories Still Key to Reaching People

An aging film star falls only to rise again. A boy connects with the father he lost on September 11. A baseball manager makes his team more competitive in the most counter-intuitive way. And African American working women illuminate their lives simply by telling their stories.
Those are the stories of, respectively, The Artist, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, The Help and Moneyball – all films that were nominated as Best Picture at the 84th Annual Academy Awards, and they remind us how much we learn and remember from stories.

Of course, intuitively, we all know the importance of stories. After all, don’t we ask for stories when we are children? And when many summers pass, we are happy to share stories with children and others. We revel in stories, as they make facts and theories more personal, more relatable. We often tell of success through rags to riches tales. Also, think back to Hurricane Katrina. Most of us were not interested in how fast the winds were blowing at that time or the hour when the levees broke. No, we paid most of our attention to the individual accounts of how everyday people were affected by the storm.

We also want a story to unspool, with a beginning, a middle and an end that ties it together. Ernest Hemingway once famously wrote the story with just six words: “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” It is said that Hemingway declared it his best work. But really, are we satisfied with that? Where are the characters, the setting, the plot line?

Whether we are speaking to large groups, a smaller department of only a few people, or one on one with a direct report, we can use stories to our advantage if we follow these tips:

• Maintain your audiences’ curiosity. The most-popular books and movies have stories that keep us wanting more. Your first step is NOT to start with the phrase, “I’m going to tell you a story.” That can be an instant turn-off. Instead, lead your listeners into it sneakily. Similarly, don’t telegraph the endings with an obvious outcome (e.g., the hero gets the girl, the disease is miraculously cured), or else your listeners will quit on you before you are finished.
• Know what you want your audience to feel in the end. It is said that we can evoke certain specific responses: think, feel, do (something!), persuade, inspire or entertain. Before you either craft or use a story, understand which of these responses you wish to evoke.
• Do not make yourself the hero of your story. Too self serving, and therefore, very off-putting.
• Don’t tell your audience, take them. Use your body, your place on the stage and your voice to bring your audience into the story. As a Toastmaster colleague once advised me, “BE the speech!”
• Make sure there is a point in the end. Psychologists tells us that the process behind the concocting of narratives is similar to that of learning. Create a payoff.

In this video, Story Time, to a group of fellow speakers, I incorporated the elements above.  Take a moment to view it to understand how they all worked together.

After the Oscars have been handed out, think back to how this year’s winners got their awards. Also, remember the past winners. When you think back to the tales of a down-and-out Philadelphia boxer, a stuttering monarch, a doomed luxury liner, or the decades of a mobster family, you will remember that the story is paramount.

What Speakers Can Learn from Show Biz Veterans

Recently, I have read a couple of memoirs from the world of show business, specifically comedians. One is Growing Up Laughing: My Story and The Story of Funny by Marlo Thomas, her remembrances of growing up in show business, mostly as the daughter of the great comic and actor Danny Thomas. The other book is by my idol, Dick Van Dyke, titled My Lucky Life In and Out of Show Business. I have been more influenced by professional comedians, TV stars and comic actors in my own speaking career than by any other single group of role models. Even though the two books are ostensibly "light reading," I took some worthwhile points from them:

• There is no substitute for rehearsal. Marlo talks about how her dad would go over his material ad nauseum until he had all the timing and nuances down. In his day, Danny Thomas was one of the most preeminent and successful storytellers in entertainment, probably comparable to Jerry Seinfeld in a way. This was why: He left nothing to chance.
• Play to your strengths. Thomas profiles 20 different comics and actors in her book, and they are each unique. Steven Wright depends on wordplay. Don Rickles is successful in his 80s as a master of the putdown. Both George Lopez and Chris Rock make their ethnicity relevant to their entire audience. Conversely, Jay Leno gently plays "Everyman." Dick Van Dyke made his talent for physical comedy the tent pole of his career. As a speaker, find your brand and stick to it rather than adjusting your style to the latest fashions.
• Build on those strengths. Van Dyke talks about how a friend arranged an audition for the Broadway classic musical, Bye Bye Birdie. When he auditioned for the show's director, Gower Champion, Van Dyke did a little soft shoe and a song. Champion told him on the spot that he got the job, but Van Dyke admitted that he could not dance. Champion -- a great musical director -- assured him that all was okay. This was because Champion saw how Van Dyke could move well enough on the stage to make the choreography work. Obviously, he was right, as Van Dyke went on to win a Tony Award for his role and went on to reprise the role in the movie version. We shouldn't be fearful of our limitations; instead, we need to build on them.
  
• Be as timeless as possible. How is it that The Dick Van Dyke Show, a black & white series that is approaching its 50th anniversary, remains so popular today? Van Dyke observes that Carl Reiner, the creative talent behind the seminal series, tried his best to avoid specific topical references, such as personalities of the day or specific events. In that way, the themes are what carry the show. While that may not seem practical today (after all, can we really avoid discussing topics such as AIDS, the economy or record employment?), we should espouse timeless principles, such as ethics, continual improvement, or caring for others.
  

How Do You Love the Audience? Let Me Count the Ways!

My mantra about every aspect of our public speaking is: "It's all about your audience; it's not about you." That includes your relationship with your audience. Here are some tips on actions that have worked for me.

REACH OUT AHEAD OF TIME. Just last night, I spoke to a group of people in career transition. The sign-up system allowed me to see each participant as they enrolled. I sent each of them an email telling how much I appreciated that they had signed up, how much I looked forward to meeting them, and how I wanted to serve their needs.

BE THERE AS THEY ARRIVE. I had to set up the room, so I got there ahead of the audience. As each arrived, I gave them a copy of my handout, and engaged them in a short conversation. (Those who had received my introductory email felt as though they already knew me.)

SAY GOODBYE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU ARE ABLE. At the end of the presentation, I stood at the front of the room and shook everyone's hands. I thanked them for coming, and I asked how the presentation met their needs. I asked them to send feedback. (In this case, the organization that hired me had a feedback mechanism, so it was an easy request to make.

REACH OUT AFTERWARDS, JUST AS YOU DO PRIOR TO THE EVENT. I sent an email to everyone who signed up, which was relatively easy, because I had created a .txt file that I would paste into each message. (I personalized them each a little, such as thanking someone for a provocative question asked or for buying my book.)

Grand entrances are for rock star divas or ham actors. The more we connect with our audiences, the more effectively we are likely to help fulfill their objectives.

How to Act When Your Audience Doesn't React

I received a kind invitation to speak to a group of leaders in Toastmasters International in Pennsylvania. The subject was how to recruit in light of the changing economy and demographics of the membership and the potential membership. I hit the floor with high energy (I was feeling good, even after a 50-mile drive). I told the audience that, while my speech is normally about six steps to follow when facing and beating change -- "My "Six P's" -- I would deal with just three of them, given the short time I was allotted. Then I launched into my speech.

However, a problem common to all speakers came up. The audience just stared at me. They were not engaged. The presentation seemed to have no relevance to them. I was concerned because I had only 20 minutes to serve them, so it was imperative for me to solve this problem. Here are steps that I believe help in this situation.

1. DON'T PANIC. This is the first lesson to learn, and it's hard. I once heard an exchange between ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and his puppet partner, Charlie McCarthy, in which Bergen said in exasperation, "This is the most stupid conversation I have ever been involved in." McCarthy responded, "Well, I can account for only half of it." Remember that the audience is also responsible to some extent for the success of this session, so don't presume it is ALL your fault when there is a problem.

2. THINK OF HOW TO DEVIATE FROM YOUR PLANNED SCRIPT. Given the advice above, what I was saying was obviously not working. I had to find out what they wanted.

3. STEP CLOSER TO THE AUDIENCE. If you are physically nearer to your listeners, they are more apt to accept you. (However, watch the line between become more familiar and invading their personal space.) They are more likely to feel a kinship with you. This is a corollary to my advice that you should introduce yourself to your audience before the program starts, shaking hands and learning their names. (Yes, I did that on this day, but apparently it wasn't enough.)

4. ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION. Ask rhetorical questions. Probe to find out what they want. Make them part of the event.

5. GO BACK TO "PLAN A" AT SOME POINT. You can't improvise the entire event. When you feel you have righted the ship, sail on your original course.

The talk continued, and I felt I maintained my dignity and composure in the end. I observed that subsequent speakers were having the same problems energizing the audience, so I felt more comfortable. Still, I received positive feedback in the end. I sold a few books, and later that day, I got a nice email from one of the attendees, who apologized for having to leave early. "Thanks for spending time with us today," he concluded. "Your presentation skills are exceptional ." Then Amazon contacted me afterward to say that there was a flurry of orders and my book is now of stock.

Hm, I guess it pulled it out in the end.

The Power of Poltical Words: Kennedy's Inaugural Address at 50

Quick, how many U.S. Presidential inaugural speeches can you recall? Other than the words "With malice toward none, with charity for all," from Lincoln's second inaugural, do any phrases jump to mind?

I didn't think so.

This week, on January 20, we observe the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. Though I was a child, I remember how it caused a stir. Now, a half-century later, I know the speech to be stirring still, a testament to speech craft that communicators should continue to study and revere.

Why does this speech, just shy of 14 minutes, stand the test of time? You can't say that it was the national swoon with youth, when the youngest man elected President succeeded the then-oldest in Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan would become the oldest man elected President.) That zeitgeist is lost to us today. It's not even all the themes comprised in the address, as some are anachronistic. For example, Kennedy pledged a measure of militarism that might not be tolerated or appreciated today.

No, the secret to this speech's longevity is its art employed by the writers. (I am purposefully vague here, as the authorship is not completely certain. For decades, the speech was credited to Ted Sorensen, which he denied. Indeed, there are notes in Kennedy's own hand that indicate he was actively involved in writing the address's key phrases.)

As you listen to the speech through this link on YouTube, hear the various devices. One common device is the use repeating phrases that conclude in different sentiments: "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life."

As is common in these sorts of speeches, Kennedy strikes a conciliatory pose, offering to stand above the fray. When he says, "We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom," he practically dares his opponents to diminish his disputed victory.

There is also the power of the repeated word. Look at this use of the simple word "any": "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more."

Similarly, look at his use here of the words "both" and "problems":
"Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations."
It is both an invitation to negotiation and a challenge to it.

And of course there is that use of the antimetabole (called tongue-in-cheek by some, the "reversible raincoat"), which repeats words in successive phrases, but transposes their order for effect. Of course, the most famous example of this produced the most-quoted phrase: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Another example, seldom cited, simultaneously expresses strength and conciliation: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

We often forget that much of the success of the speech depended on Kennedy himself and his ability to deliver such lofty rhetoric. His voice would rise when needed, and he punched the words that needed emphasis. And yet again, there was Kennedy's youth. As I listened to the speech today, I really had not remembered how high his voice was. This was a man with the energy and enthusiasm to deliver on these problems.

But beyond the craft, I believe the the speech stands up because of the optimism, the ideas that this was still the American century in 1961. "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors," Kennedy intones, an appropriate sentiment during the paranoia of the Atomic Age. "Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce," he called, and Americans believed that there was nothing we could not do.

Sadly, the speech was sadly prophetic of his rudely interrupted term of office when he said that "All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Today, polls show that Kennedy still ranks as the best of the post-World War II presidents. This surprises me, but perhaps the answer lies in this speech. In an era when many so-called political stars speak without wit, compassion, or solutions to the problems they cite, the inspirational words from a man whose best was yet to come are all but irresistible.

ROYAL TREATMENT: Lessons from "The King's Speech"

The King's Speech is a movie about a man finding his voice. It is about friendship. It is about mutual respect. It is about integrity and the sometimes dubious value of "professional certification." It is a movie about courage. In fact, one of the most remarkable things about this wonderful film is that it touches all of these themes so deftly and warmly.

The main architect of the English language, William Shakespeare, wrote in Twelfth Night, "Be not afraid of greatness: some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." Prince Albert, cum King George VI (the father of the current Queen), had greatness dubiously thrust upon him when his brother, King Edward, abdicated the throne to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson. But Albert (known as Bertie to his family who treated him cruelly) did not seek, did not want, and was not prepared for this royal role for one reason: He spoke with a ferocious and painful stammer. It was difficult for him to get out a simple sentence. He wondered aloud, how could he lead a nation when he could not even speak to them?

Bertie's caring and supportive wife, Elizabeth (played lovingly by Helena Bonham Carter), wants to spare him public humiliation, so she seeks out so-called "professional" speech therapists. Despite their credentials, they seem to be little more than hacks. One prescribes the soothing and relaxing qualities of cigarettes to Bertie. Another employs the tried, trite and untrue method of putting marbles in his mouth. No one seemed able to help.

Then Elizabeth finds Lionel Logue, a struggling (if not failed) actor, and to boot, an Australian, an emigre to the England from their penal colony. Portrayed by the great Geoffrey Rush, Lionel has no academic credentials, but his confidence, skill and humanity are the stuff of success.

To begin, he insists on interacting with Bertie on a first name basis. No titles here. (Having worked in hospitals myself, I found that this practice was important. I learned not to use the title "Doctor" and to address physicians by their names, forcing them to deal with me as a colleague.) Furthermore, Lionel is firm with his patient, insisting on excellence and never patronizing him. He believes that Bertie can be successful, and he wants Bertie to believe it, too.

As Prince Albert, Colin Firth gives an inspiring performance. As the father of a son who has triumphed over stuttering, I could feel his frustration at the inability to get out a simple sentence. I sympathized with his stumbles over a conga line of consonants. But I could also sense the satisfaction that comes with overcoming this problem. (I have learned from my son and others that, like alcoholics, there are no "former" stammerers. One beats the condition every day through sheer determination.)

At one point in the film, Lionel's honor is called into question. He is accused of taking on the job merely to have the cache of a royal client. But at this very moment we realize that Lionel has acted exactly opposite to that charge. He assumed this assignment because of commitment to his craft rather than the bloodlines of his student. (In fact, Lionel displays a measure of disdain for royalty, which is not unusual for someone from outside England.) Furthermore, he becomes Albert's friend, confidante and counselor. Through their interactions, we learn the roots not only of Albert's speech but also of his underlying uncertainty.

After all the preparation is done, and when it comes time for the new King George to inform the British Empire of their entry into World War II, director Tom Hooper makes us feel not only the historical import of the event, but Albert's singular success. The camera follows his walk to the recording studio through long corridors strewn with cables, symbolizing his long journey to get to this moment. As Albert speaks, Hooper cuts to visuals of listeners who would fight this war for the Crown: factory workers, truckers and the middle class. We also see signs at the transmitters that show how the message is being broadcast to the colonies of the U.K., a symbol of the reach of the new King's power.

One could argue that Albert was born great just by virtue of his royal lineage. But he had greatness thrust upon him in an unusual turn of unforeseen and unprecedented events. Through his own courage and the help of a loving partner-in-life and a new-found friend, he achieves his own measure of majesty. It is a simple story made great by the telling, a footnote to history that we may not have known. As a speaker and communicator, this film resonates with me. As a man, as a husband, and as a friend of others, I find it unforgettable and inspiring.

(As an extra bonus to you, my loyal readers, here is a link to the actual speech by King George in which he rallied the English people to enter the War, made available through the BBC archives. It is important to know that this wonderful script was written by David Seidler, who was a stutterer himself, but was inspired to fight his situation by this very event. Unfortunately for all of us, he promised Elizabeth the Queen Mum that he would not make his script known until she was gone. However, she had the temerity to wait until 2001 to pass, when she was 101. Otherwise, we may have enjoyed this story much earlier.)
.

Speaking the Unspeakable (and you know what I'm talking about!)

In a recent Toastmaster competition, I decided to cover about a subject to which members only allude. It is usually referred to only euphemistically, sending the message that says, "You and I both know what I mean here, but I better not say it out loud." Yes, this dreaded topic is...
(drum roll, please)
SEX!
Yes, let me repeat that. it's SEX!, for goodness sakes.
In a time when our children face unwanted pregnancies, the threat of sexually transmitted disease, and rampant misinformation, and disinformation, about the sexual relations. So I decided to take this on, and have fun in the process. (Click here to see the video.)
I wrote a speech about the time I spoke with my son, Francis, about sex. I needed to have this discussion with him earlier -- when he was only 8 years old. I thought there was a lesson in there, so I constructed this speech. However, I thought that it was risky to even approach this subject, so I followed this strategy:

1. OPEN WITH A JOKE. This put the audience at ease right away.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBJECT OF THE SPEECH UP FRONT, ALONG WITH OUR RELUCTANCE TO SPEAK ABOUT IT. By doing this, the audience felt they were in on the joke. It also gave them "permission" to let themselves go and enjoy the speech. (However, it was then incumbent upon me to treat the subject with taste.)
3. EMPATHIZE WITH THE AUDIENCE'S SENSITIVITIES. I acknowledged their own discomfort with the subject with humor and made myself one of the audience members in that regard.
4. PUT THEM IN THE SITUATION. I was once advised TO "be the speech;" don't just deliver the speech. I introduced the audience to Francis by portraying him as a child, and I acted out the situation that led to the discussion.
5. GIVE YOUR MORAL TO THE STORY. A subject as important as this doesn't exist in a vacuum. The story was not the very fact that I had the discussion with Francis. It was that I took my responsibilities as a father seriously and imparted my values to him. The moral I gave may not fit your morals, but I hope you would respect that, as I would respect whatever you chose to tell me.

The speech was well received, as you will hear when you view the video. More important, I felt that I had broken some ground with my colleagues in Toastmasters on tackling a previously verboten topic.

Say What You Mean, Then Mean It

I am a person known for strong opinions, but somehow that did not come through recently, so I found myself in a teachable moment.
Last week, I gave a speech at Siemens Toastmasters titled "The Good Book." My goal was to ask the audience to consider that the Bible should be discussed more openly than it is.
The speech was well-received. It began with a humorous story about a little boy who read a Bible passage that suited his purpose of chastising his parents. I made my case that the Bible should be more a part of our common dialogue than it is currently. I even taught in our schools as an historical document and as a source of great literature. (For people who who know me, that assertion can be a bit shocking. More on that later.)
I offered phrases from the Bible that are so much a part of our language that people often think they came from Shakespeare. For example, did you know that the expression "nothing but skin and bones" came from the Bible. It appears in the book of Job. In fact the same passage contains the phrase "the skin of my teeth" -- hardly an expression that one associates with sacred writings.
When my evaluator, Alex, offered a critique of my speech, he was stuck on one portion of it in the beginning , in which I said:

Now I’m sure that members who have heard my speeches over the years are surprised to hear me say this. I have argued passionately against forcing a public expression of belief in a single supreme being. Also, as a religious person myself, I find homogenized “one-size-fits-all” versions of prayer to be offensive.

But today, I am not endorsing the Bible as the “word of God.” I would never offend those of you outside the Judeo-Christian beliefs by insisting that it is. Instead, I believe that the stories and words of the Bible can be studied as part of a fully rounded, liberal education. Even the Supreme Court judges who ruled in 1963 against mandatory prayer stated that their decision did not ban the study of the Bible or of religion when it was presented objectively.

Alex didn't know how to react to this phrasing, nor did he know how to express his problem with it. It was an intuitive reaction that he struggle with during the meeting and immediately afterward in a conversation with me. He felt that I was making an apology for my topic, even though I was committed to it. Finally, he wrote me an email that expounded on his feelings:

"I didn't know if you were offering an apology for Pat, the speaker, or an apology for the Bible.

Perhaps 'apology' is not the right term. It's not like you were saying 'I'm going to apologize to anyone who is offended by my topic or the Bible.' Maybe I was taken aback (ever so slightly) by your need to establish your credentials as someone who is fair and balanced on this topic. In which case, the point I would make is that any good communicator, as you are, should state your thesis and let the rest of the speech be your proof. Let your message be your credentials."

I understand Alex, and I believe he is right. Yes, I was trying to be fair to all the people in the room, sensitive to their wide variety of beliefs. Regular readers of this blog know that I am committed to proper word choice so that it not be a barrier to the intended communication. But in my five to seven minutes (standard length for most Toastmaster speeches), I devoted too much time to this set up. Worse, I let my explanation blunt the impact of my speech ever so slightly.

This manifests itself in different ways in Toastmasters, most notably in evaluations. Many, perhaps most, evaluators just can't bring themselves to say, "You know, you really didn't fulfill the objectives of this speech." Or, "The speech is supposed to go no more than seven minutes, and when you went 10 minutes, you robbed us of valuable time from the meeting."

So my point is when you need to say something, SAY IT! No, this is not contradictory to my other positions. This is not a license to be sloppy in your word choices so that your meaning is not clear, nor is it a suggestion to use culturally insensitive language as we all-too-often hear among so-called commentators or even Presidents who say that someone acted "stupidly." No, I am saying is that we should all make our meanings clear in the boundaries of the time we have.

Thanks, Alex. I'll try to do better next time.

What Beauty Pageants Can Learn From Toastmasters

With all the brouhaha about Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, which started once she answered a judge's question about gay marriage, one point has been conspicuously overlooked: Why should she have been the only contestant to have received that question? That was patently unfair, as that question (coming from a gay judge) was loaded from the start. Nobody really knows how the other contestants would have answered it. Admittedly, I did not see the pageant (an anachronism, in my view), but it seems to be that under these circumstances, the other beauty queens may have received puffballs that offered no threat of controversy.
The fairest thing would have been to give all them the same question. Toastmasters International does this with its Table Topics contest (a contest in extemporaneous speaking). All contestants wait outside the contest area, and each is escorted back to the room singly, in succession, to receive the same question. The contestants are then judged on their abilities to assemble their thoughts and present their answers in an organized manner.
This would have been a much fairer way to judge the Miss USA contestants' poise and mental agility that to subject them all to different standards.

Postscript: As I write this, Donald Trump has just announced at a press conference that Ms. Prejean will continue as Miss California. It has been a great example of spin and self service. Trump trumpeted how "important" the pageant has become since he bought it. Then Prejean spoke of her right to speak, adding inexplicably and perfunctorily how her grandfather fought with General Patton. She also launched into a diatribe on freedom of speech, which no one except the contest judge disputed. No one at the press conference addressed the point of how Prejean has subsequently gone on to a public platform against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with her role as Miss California.

Who Wrote Your Speech?

To My Fellow Toastmasters and other Speechmakers:

I was annoyed some years back when the film “The Dead Poets Society” won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. I found that the film was little more than a pastiche of literary fragments from some of the greatest writers of all time, held together by a flimsy melodrama. Similarly, I have endured many speeches that were similarly unoriginal:

• The main body of the speech is a published feature story that is repeated with little embellishment. At the end, the speaker feebly tries to tie it together with a phrase like, “Has this ever happened to you?” or “What could we learn from this?”
• We receive commentary on a recent event that is simply a compilation of the previously published insights of other professional commentators.
• The speaker takes a stand on an issue, but fails to attribute his supporting facts, which often are the unaccredited opinions of others with similar opinions.

I admit that I have my own penchant for quotations by others. (I find their words can be better than my own.) But when former Toastmaster World Champs reviewed drafts of my speech, they nail me on the second citation. “You've already quoted someone else,” they say. “We’re more interested in what YOU have to say!”
In the end, that is the main idea: Toastmasters exists so that we can build our own communication skills. That includes thinking through our points, constructing their logic, and then using language and oratorical skills to convey them. Parroting others is not only self-defeating, it is unethical, approaching plagiarism (if not actually committing that crime).
It is a unique thrill to deliver a speech that informs, entertains, moves, or inspires other to action. Give yourself the pride of rightfully claiming the work as your own.

The Value of Toastmaster Conferences

As I've noted throughout this blog, I'm a veteran Toastmaster, having won four District championships and competed in a Regional competition - the semi-final of the World Championship. My friend, JoAnn, is new to TM and she is working hard to develop her considerable native talent. But we both got a lot out of the weekend conference we attended for District 38 (Philadelphia and NJ). And it just shows the value of Toastmaster events, which are designed to benefit many levels of speakers with a wide variety of abilities.

The way the conference started was fun way for me. I was part of a Friday night "Humor Showcase" -- which basically means that a few of us got to tell funny speeches to a receptive audience that had been drinking. I gave a speech titled "Orchestra in My Pocket," which is about playing the harmonica. I wish I had committed it to YouTube to show you, because apparently it's funnier than it may sound. But the beauty of the event was that I wasn't competing and there were no time constraints, so I just riffed on it, just as Lenny Bruce brought a jazz mentality to comedy. Man, it was fun. Plus JoAnn got to see how I took a club performance, which was more staid, and embellished it without the constraints of time or in some cases taste.

JoAnn enjoyed seeing all the different people, the personalities and characters, that comprise Toastmasters. She also got to see all the elements that go into a good speech: the physicality, the vocal variety, the crisp writing, and in the case of the Table Topics contest, the wonder of extemporaneous speaking. In her words: "Watching all the talent makes me want to step up my game." She's ready to attend another one.

Her reaction and learning points illustrate why I encourage my fellow TMs to attend conferences. Even though I won the District Humorous Speech contest twice and also came in second another time, I still learned from the contestants, who were just remarkable. Like JoAnn, I was reminded of how one has to use the body and vary the voice. If I didn't think I could learn from these events, I wouldn't waste my time or money. But the people in my District are terrific. In turn, I'm very proud that many of them come to me for advice and believe I bring value. I always try to comport myself in a way that makes me worthy of that trust.

So JoAnn has a great attitude. She went there to learn not just to be seen and check it off her to-do She found lessons to incorporate into her speaking career. If you are a Toastmaster, I heartily recommend that you attend your conferences. Odds are that they are a worthwhile investment in your speaking career.

the Most Wonderful Time of the Year (for Toastmasters)

This is one of the two times of the year I enjoy most — the Toastmaster competitions in the fall and spring. As a devoted speaker and club member, I derive benefits that grow stronger every year.

Our club contests are remarkably, joyously NON-competitive, as our members are so happy to give it their best shots with their speeches. Our members also comprise a supportive, appreciative and reactive audience, laughing where they should and giving visual cues throughout each speech. Our winners can count, at the least, for much encouragement before they go to the next level. Some members go the extra distance and actually coach our winners, making them twice blessed. (I can tell you from personal experience how helpful and gratifying that is.)

The next level kicks up your adrenalin as you strive to clear that higher bar. Now you are stepping out of your comfort zone, facing unfamiliar contestants. What are their special speaking gifts? What are their unique topics for their prepared speeches? How well and quickly can they speak off the cuff for Table Topics and Evaluation?

These factors make attending other contests valuable, as they become opportunities to learn. Additionally, they tap into our capacities to contribute. I will be traveling among contests this fall, volunteering to be a judge, interview, ballot counter, back-up timer… anything that will help the cause, as others helped me compete over the last few years. And I will learn from others.