All Things Bright & Beautiful
Just felt like writing in with a smile on a beautiful Martin Luther King, Jr. Monday.
The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on Dr. King's speaking style, how it compares to Barack Obama's, and what qualities make a good speech. The article is called "The Power of Dreams" and can be read (with not-free log-in) here.
Obviously, I can't repost the article here, but the two-paragraph thrust focuses on the concept of "resonance", which the author defines as a speech's ability to echo cultural themes. After tracing the lineage of the ideas in many great speeches, the author characterizes the contents of King's speech. This is the paragraph I've chosen to post:
"Indeed, oratory without allusion is usually little more than motivational speaking. And "I Have a Dream" is more densely packed with allusions and outright references than nearly any other speech in American history. King begins with Lincoln ("Five score years ago..."), moves quickly to the Declaration of Independence ("unalienable rights") and minutes later has invoked the prophet Amos ("justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream"). Before the speech is over, King has quoted "My Country 'Tis of Thee," with its American lyrics and its music lifted from the English "God Save the King," and the Negro spiritual "Free at Last." As Drew Hansen notes in his book about King's speech, "The Dream," just using the motif of the dream reminds biblically literate listeners of Joseph, Daniel and Joel. And King's hope that "the crooked places will be made straight" recalls Ecclesiastes, Isaiah and Luke."
I found the article fascinating, but I'd love to hear others' opinions, especially those with speechwriting experience.
The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on Dr. King's speaking style, how it compares to Barack Obama's, and what qualities make a good speech. The article is called "The Power of Dreams" and can be read (with not-free log-in) here.
Obviously, I can't repost the article here, but the two-paragraph thrust focuses on the concept of "resonance", which the author defines as a speech's ability to echo cultural themes. After tracing the lineage of the ideas in many great speeches, the author characterizes the contents of King's speech. This is the paragraph I've chosen to post:
"Indeed, oratory without allusion is usually little more than motivational speaking. And "I Have a Dream" is more densely packed with allusions and outright references than nearly any other speech in American history. King begins with Lincoln ("Five score years ago..."), moves quickly to the Declaration of Independence ("unalienable rights") and minutes later has invoked the prophet Amos ("justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream"). Before the speech is over, King has quoted "My Country 'Tis of Thee," with its American lyrics and its music lifted from the English "God Save the King," and the Negro spiritual "Free at Last." As Drew Hansen notes in his book about King's speech, "The Dream," just using the motif of the dream reminds biblically literate listeners of Joseph, Daniel and Joel. And King's hope that "the crooked places will be made straight" recalls Ecclesiastes, Isaiah and Luke."
I found the article fascinating, but I'd love to hear others' opinions, especially those with speechwriting experience.
posted by Tom Fletcher at 9:45 AM
13 Comments:
Tom, you've outdone yourself. You are a fatuous blowhard who should never try, even by implication, to associate yourself with Dr. King, especially given your stated Federalist preferences.
This school has done such a great job of bursting my bubble re: liberals. I always thought that we (liberals) were supposed to be the open minded ones. 10:31 is just another example of Boalt's closeminded polarizing lefties who are no better than the bible-thumping anti-rights conservatives. Sad.
Why not post the whole article? This whole exercise is a bit silly since hardly anyone can use the link that has been posted. Do you really think you are important enough that the WSJ will sue you? Even if they do take notice, they will start by merely asking you to take it down.
Speaking of Federalists and MLK, perhaps this post is like the campaign ads the Republicans were running during the Fall trying to convince black voters MLK was a "real man" and would vote Republican.
And, 12:23, any student of MLK's life will tell you if he were around today, he would certainly be one of the lefties you call "closeminded" and "polarizing" because he was serious about justice, something only a person as privileged as a Boalt student can see as less important than being "open minded" to extremists like the Federalist Society. If you're really serious about the spirit of MLK, go to an NLG meeting and volunteer to help out or walk a picket line with a union on April 4, their MLK Day. You can be sure Tom Fletcher and 12:23 won't be there with you but if you make enough noise, they may take the time to insult you on this blog.
Allusion was (unsurprisingly) a big theme in the undergraduate literature department where I majored in college. There are certainly those who feel allusion is the sine qua non of serious rhetoric (whether oral or literary). Harold Bloom probably represents the apogee of this approach in literary criticism.
One problem with this view (either as a technique for composition or a rubric for evaluation) is that it requires a pretty robust set of shared cultural references. Thus, Bloom’s literary theory naturally (though perhaps not inevitably) suggests a critique of multiculturalism: that a balkanized set of cultural references prevents speeches from enacting a ritual of common experience and shared belonging. Thus, people who don’t know the Bible feel excluded rather than inspired by Milton. Those who don't know Dante won't get Eliot, &c. It wasn’t very long ago that speakers and writers of English could comfortably assume pretty detailed familiarity with the King James edition. Now: not so much. Ask yourself if King’s (and especially Lincoln’s) speeches would succeed today?
I am presently reading _What I Saw At The Revolution_, a wonderful political memoir by Peggy Noonan, who wrote for Reagan. It’s a pretty great book. Inspiring, in fact. She describes writing the address he gave on the evening of the Challenger disaster, which I consider one of the most moving pieces of rhetoric in my lifetime.
It is utterly ridiculous how some “anonymous” folks are attacking Tom Fletcher—an extraordinarily decent and dignified individual. He is willing to come from behind the shroud of “anonymity” to provide this forum with thought-provoking entries. Tom, if I have something further to say on your interesting post, I will certainly do so.
Tashica
I think it says something sad about the majority of the students at Boalt that they would rather launch personal attacks at each other then take part in an intellectual discourse. When liberals feel that they ought to attack first simply because they expect conservatives to be vicous in response, or vice versa, it is clear that no one is actually interested in learning and growing from each other. And we are supposed to be the intellectual elite.
Kudos to Isaac for keeping on topic. I agree that the Challenger speech is one of the greatest political orations of my lifetime. If I remember correctly, the most moving section (touch the face of God) was a quote from a poem. Does Noonan mention why she chose that poem?
The most powerful aspect of King's entire approach -- and not just his speeches -- is that he resolutely treated others as the best persons they might be, even when they were falling far short. Gandhi did that. Mandela also. Tutu as well.
Crazy idea: here at Boalt we all try the same thing with the people we consider our opponents. So, instead of trashing Tom or trashing the trashers of Tom, we call out to the best in each other. At least on this holiday, anyway.
It seems there is something a little deeper going on here than is first evident. The initial post and subsequent snarky comments can be seen as part of the struggle over King's legacy.
First, let's remember that conservatives are still in the ascendant in the US, November's elections notwithstanding (a $2.10/hr. increase in the minumum wage is pretty modest for the top priority for the purported party of liberals). In this context, a proud Federalist Society member saying he "[j]ust felt like writing in with a smile on a beautiful Martin Luther King, Jr. Monday" could be construed as a provocation. At the very least, it a sign that the times are not very friendly for liberals and their agenda.
The comment that the most significant thing about King was his graciousness towards his opponents underscores how drastically his legacy has been rewritten. King took some of the most divisive stands in US history. He worked against white supremacy in the South and when he was good he was in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers--making good to return after violence broke out during a march on his last visit. He was also planning a march on Washington for poor people as part of a new, much more radical campaign. The head of the FBI considered him an enemy of the state and he was ardently opposed to the Vietnam War (meaning he would have cut of funding, unlike Nancy Pelosi). While today the name King may bring a smile to the face of a Federalist, for radical conservatives in the 1960s it most certainly did not. Our own Thelton Henderson was fired from DOJ after conservative outrage that his giving King a ride--which may have prevented King's lynching--meant the US government had "taken sides" in the civil rights struggle.
In the nearly forty years since his death, King has been robbed of much of his radicalism. Most Americans have no concept of all progressive things he stood for. In most civics classes, he has now been reduced to a spokesman for colorblindness. No one knows of the anti-poverty and anti-war agenda he was pursuing when he was killed. More troubling for the liberal speechwriters, there is no longer as profound a progressive legacy to allude to when writing a speech for today. Now that American conservatives have disavowed overt racism, they can enthusiastically join in the celebration of half of Dr. King with the rest of us.
I hope this explanation meets everyone's standard of "intellectual discourse." I hope it also helps to explain why some people are so bothered by Federalists--who are no friends of contemporary struggles for social justice--"writing in with a smile" today.
Here's the link to the TNR piece.
What's amazing about the failure in the reasoning of conservative writers at the time is how they read out King's committment to non-violence. Dr. King would never have condoned rioting and arson, and from what I remember from my Race Relations class, he had very tense relationships with SNCC, et al as he tried to maintain peaceful resistance.
Re: 12:47's post. Dr. King was deeply concerned with justice, but I do not think that he would have allowed his concern for justice to trump other important values like speech, property, limited government, etc.
Re: the TNR piece, I would not describe King as "truly terrifying." Terror was the last King hoped to inspire. King instead preached a message of inter-relatedness and mutuality that fundamentally conflicts with dividing into "us" and "them".
Re: E. Warren, McCain & Rehnquist. The line is very funny, and has a nice "resonance" quality. On the other hand, is it reasonable to perceive of Rehnquist & McCain as reliable racists gone underground, or to imagine that over the course of decades, people's views have changed? As funny as the line is, I think it's healthy to dwell on past sins, but to instead work to move forward. It's hard to engage in meaningful debate if we keep tarring people as racists when they do (appear) to have disavowed their past actions and stances. At what point do you forgive and trust E-Dub? Re: McCain, his shameful membership in the Keating Five appears to have changed him, at least as long as you believe he genuinely believes in campaign finance reform.
Re: 3:41, I'm curious about this line: "More troubling for the liberal speechwriters, there is no longer as profound a progressive legacy to allude to when writing a speech for today." What do you mean? Do you mean that society's lack of familiarity with the whole of Dr. King's writings means there is less for you to build on? Also, a follow-up question for you based on the article: does the liberal speechwriter fall flat by failing to incorporate the religious foundations of Dr. King's work? And incorporating Isaac's comments, does a steely commitment to multi-culturalism prevent deeply theological movements like King's? These are the questions I wrestle with today.
Finally, re: not posting the whole article. Whether or not WSJ would ever write in to ask me to take their content down, why harass them to start? They wrote the article, it belongs to them. I'll happily point to it, but I won't take it. Perhaps we should have a blogwide debate on copyright norms though; I know my stance is not shared by the whole N&B cartel.
PS: I was trying to build on the article's resonance theme with the title of the post. I felt the title conveyed both the crisp clear morning and echoed King's teaching.
"Dr. King was deeply concerned with justice, but I do not think that he would have allowed his concern for justice to trump other important values like speech, property, limited government, etc."
Wow. I had no idea MLK cared more about limited government and property than equality and justice. Is that really the Federalist Society's line on him these days? I suppose they had to come up with something now that they have lost the fight to keep him from having his own holiday.
I think that the whole MLK day thing has a little more nuance that is being reflected in the above comments. Isn't it possible for someone to celebrate MLK's work towards ending segregation without supporting all of his political ideals? After all, he didn't become famous for opposing the Vietnam War. He got things done that (I hope this isn't too contraversial, but this is Berkeley after all) all Democrats and some/many current Republicans respect. I don't think it is particularly outlandish to suggest that many Republicans do not want the return of legal segregation and can celebrate MLK's contribution to its demise, even if they don't support affirmative action or the variety of other liberal causes.
Finally, on McCain and the whole MLK holiday thing, do we really know that he voted against it because he is a racist? If I was given the chance right now, I would vote against making Christmas, MLK day, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Veterans' Day national holidays. I would rather have floating holidays. When MLK day was created, it replaced a floating holiday for a lot of people. I think it is at least possible that there is a reason other than racism underlying such a vote.
Re: Peggy Noonan
She apparently believes that Jesus-dolphins sheparded Elian Gonzalez to America. link
Here is some mind-blowing hackery from that article:
"And some of us, in our sadness, wonder what Ronald Reagan, our last great president, would have done. I think I know. The burden of proof would have been on the communists, not the Americans; he would have sent someone he trusted to the family and found out the facts; seeing the boy had bonded with the cousin he would have negotiated with Mr. Castro to get the father here, and given him whatever he could that would not harm our country. Mr. Reagan would not have dismissed the story of the dolphins as Christian kitsch, but seen it as possible evidence of the reasonable assumption that God's creatures had been commanded to protect one of God's children. And most important, the idea that he would fear Mr. Castro, that he would be afraid of a tired old tyrant in faded fatigues, would actually have made him laugh. Mr. Reagan would fear only what kind of country we would be if we took the little boy and threw him over the side, into the rough sea of history.
He would have made a statement laying out the facts and ended it, "The boy stays, the dream endures, the American story continues. And if Mr. Castro doesn't like it, well, I'm afraid that's really too bad."
But then he was a man."
Reagan probably would have said some shit like that, because Noonan would have written it for him.
Post a Comment
<< Home