Logically I cannot, nor would I. disagree with the decision on the ground that it went to a speaker who had not learned his speech off by heart: on this point I am one with Mr. Whitta, whose letter will be found on a later page of this edition, but in all humility I would maintain that a fairly high degree, of fluency is required, and that a speaker should not attempt an extempore speech until he in sufficiently experienced to know that his flow of words will not be interrupted while he, pauses, either to consider his notes, or to calculate with a fair amount of certainty what should come next. Any break of this nature serves to remind the audience that the speaker is not really immersed in his subject, and that therefore he does not possess the conviction that he would instil in his audience.

It is true that there was no really outstanding oratory presented in the contest, but that cannot Justify the judges for going to the opposite extreme.

Unfortunately, all that is said now cannot recall the mistake, but it can serve an a warning to the future, so that the mistake will never occur again. I understand that steps are to be taken at a general meeting of the Debating Society to be held this Friday night to provide safeguards for future contests.

Cold Perfection

A picture as beautiful and delicate as the painted Elizabeth which she was portraying is the best description of Meida O'Reilly's speech on Elizabeth I. Peeling off two vertical strips from her subject she concentrated on her oration around them; the result was an effect which, contrary to the expressed opinion of the speaker, did not go beyond the robes of majesty. The delivery was too much of an elocutionary item to give depth and sincerity to the speech. Nevertheless it was a delightful contribution to the evening, with all the glitter and artistry of a perfectly cut diamond. The speaker sought after and achieved, cold perfection. In my view it deserved second place in the contest. The lurid death scene of Essex appeared as a conscious and fruitless striving after effect. My advice to orators is to treat a death scene with simplicity, sincerity, and above all with brevity.

The final two sentences of this speech were the best two sentences of the evening. They captured, with magnificent rhetorical effect, more perfectly than this pen can describe, the two opposed facets of Elizabeths character which Meida set out to illustrate—a monarch and a lonely woman.

In the Blizzardly Cold South

By contrast, John McLean's R. F. Scott, appeared as something less perfect, more human and more sincere. His speech impressed me as being the best attempt at oratory of the evening. His subject was one which is frequently attempted in an oratory contest and for that reason was not a particularly good choice. However, he handled it reasonably well His opening gave the keynote: "The very drama of death often makes men famous, but ..." He went on to illustrate why Scott was, apart altogether from the fact that he died in tragic circumstances, a hero. The quotation from Scott's diary was well handled: a thing which is often quoted becomes trite by repetition, but this quotation is an integral part of Scott's story. His portrait of Scott as a dreamer was skilfully managed while I. at any rate, saw the southern wastes through Scott's eyes when John spoke of the undisclosed regions. These illustrations served to give colour and variety to the speech, and are the principal reasons why I rated him above Bruce Brown.

John's conclusion was good though I felt that more fire could have been impressed into the penultimate sentences. Although he has an excellent voice, he has yet to achieve the full realisation of his talents in this respect. He used little gesture but appealed as being quite at home on the platform. He has a pleasant manner and looks a likely future winner.

The Butcher

Abandoning historical accuracy in favour of euphony (a speech impediment necessitated Stalin's death in 1952) Gordon Cruden gaily set to work on Stalin with a meat chopper. Doubtless this treatment is not unfair but it is a pity that Gordon overdid it; so black was Stalin painted that what would otherwise have been one of the most brilliant conclusions heard in recent years was ruined by the super colossal degradation to which Stalin had sunk earlier in the speech. Had the speaker been more lightly cynical in the body of his oration he would have left his audience roaring instead of stunned. As it was, Cruden found it necessary' to abadnon his cleaver fairly early in his speech and increased his effect by continuing with a vigorously wielded sledgehammer. The result was the most entertaining speech of the evening, but by no means the best. ("Stalin epitomised the man of steel—he was the only one of a family of five to survive infancy"). With lurid adjectives (wretchedly horrible and violently disgusting") and mixed metaphors ("usurped from the breasts of the people the fruits of the revolution . . . ") he thundered onwards, becoming more and more like an advertisement for what not to do with Marmite.

Reaching his climax "stricken with [unclear: heart] attacks ... or were they the pangs of a long suppressed conscience ") he cast around for a more striking weapon. His last blows were delivered with a piledriver. When at long last Stalin died ("it was a far far, better things that he did then than he had ever done") we were told with an apt misquotation from Lincoln—that speech impediment again—that government of, by for the people "shall not perish from our midst."

As the final chords of the peroration were momentarily replaced by a numbed silence, all that remained of Marshal Stalin trickled across the stage and dripped on to the floor.

Hardy Annual

That hardy annual, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, came up for review once more, this time at the hands of Graham Hubbard. With this speech, I thought there was too much narrative and uninteresting detail. Graham has potentially a good voice but did not use it well. He was unfortunately, somewhat hesitant, and did not remember his speech as well as he would have wished. It was a speech which had no peaks, though the speaker seemed to warm up to his subject about half way through. He related Schweitzer to missionaries in general, their work and their troubles, but did not attempt oratory. He fell into the old trap of tolling a funny story; it was quite a good funny story, but the audience sensed it coming and waited to see how it illustrated Schweitzer's character; the audience was disappointed. The two lessons to be learned from this are: (a) don't let your audience know a "Joke" is coming; and (b) only use a Joke when it illustrates your theme—the theme in this case being Schweitzer's character. Highlight of the speech. I thought, was the description of Schweitzer as a man. "trying to be part of the answer, not part of the problem."

J.F.D. . . .

It was a pity that Marjorie Munro had to take her speech on to the platform with her, though it is understandable, as her oration had been completely recast that morning. She has a pleasant voice and used it quite well, but lacked experience. There were regular breaks in the continuity, as she followed the track of the speech from the pages in her hand. Her nervousness showed at one point where she made a self-conscious moue as she was searching for her place. These are things which a little more confidence and experience will overcome.

A critical treatment of John Foster Dulles, though, must be carefully done before a New Zealand audience, otherwise the listeners will grow unsympathetic. I felt she lost a little ground by the choice of her subject.

Of Presidents and Things

Bruce Brown had a quiet, effective opening in his subject. Woodrow Wilson, and he carried on his speech equally effectively. His use of gesture was good and natural, and his conclusion was well framed. His chief fault was in his voice production; too often at the end of a sentence or clause, he dropped his voice to such an extent that it was a strain to listen to pick up what he said I formed the opinion that his speech was not sufficiently varied, although his material content was the soundest of the evening. He said more about his subject than did any Other speaker. Had he made more use of contrast and light and shade. I think he would have scored more heavily than John McLean.

Medallist

What am I to say of Dave Mummery, the winner? I thought, to start with, that he had an extraordinarily difficult subject. An economist sounds too coldly calculating a person to arouse much emotion, and I felt, when Dave had finished, that we had had a mathematical analysis of the man, rather than an oration.

I thought his opening was faulty—he seemed to sidle into his speech before the audience was expecting him His material, though good, lacked highlights, and seemed all Very much the same.

While it is true that there was no attempt to stir the emotions in Dave's delivery, he did appear quite enthusiastic. In an unobtrusive way, towards the conclusion.

In manner he was hesitant and often stumbed over words, I thought that he did not have the platform presence that he ought to have had. Constantly speaking from an angle, he spoke to his audience with his head resting coyly, first on one shoulder, and then the other

I don't want to appear unfairly critical of Dave, but I commenced this report by saying that I thought the judges were wrong, and it is therefore my duty to give my reasons. I think, that had Dave not won the Medal this year, he would have done so either next year or the year after, with a much better subject and a much better speech, because I know that he is capable of it. In this respect he has my sympathy; he will never know how well he might have spoken.

Improved Speaker

To Anne Olsen must go the prize for the most improved speaker. Her delivery was vastly improved on last year, though she still has quite a few faults to correct. Unfortunately ill health this year prevented her from doing full Justice to herself and it was only three days before the contest that her speech was complete. Her treatment of Nehru was sympathetic and sincere She linked her subject with world problems in a way that gave her speech more meaning than many other speeches of the evening, and this is an aspect of her speech which could well be studied with profit by future Plunket Medal aspirants. I noticed the same approach in some of the other speeches but found it most pronounced in this one. She has a slight Speech impediment which might be overcome with training, but it has the unfortunate effect of blurring some of her words. She held her audience well, but her conclusion I considered a trifle abrupt. She will improve a great deal in the next year or two and with more time to prepare. I believe she has an excellent chance of winning the medal in the future.

And Comments

—F. L. Curtin.

(A.P.)