Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 22, No. 8. August 3, 1959

Four Critics and Trehey — One Waddles Home

page 7

Four Critics and Trehey

One Waddles Home

A former judge of the Plunket Medal contest once made the observation that it did not sound well for your men to set out to discredit and criticise men who had achieved some degree of fame during their lifetime.

This piece of advice could well have been borne in mind by the contestants in this year's contest held in the Concert Chamber on Friday, July 17, for of the eight speeches delivered four were violently critical of men or their institutions and there was also Mr Trehey.

It is implicit in oratory, almost a definition of the term, that the audience should be elevated and enlightened by what they hear—perhaps to the point of awakening some fire within them. If a speaker can do that, he is an orator.

Tribute

It is therefore a tribute to Mr Waddle's voice, his manner and particularly to his experience, that he could win the contest when for 12 minutes he told the audience that they were, as members of humanity, murderers, rapists, thieves and brutes. His theme was 'The Brutality of Man" and the whole picture of a callous, stupid race of men was skilfully portrayed—particularly the peaceful opening description of a mother playing with her child in Hiroshima, three minutes before the atom bomb fell, while Daddy was at the factory making guns to kill New Zealanders.

Beyond this description the assumption is that there was, underneath it all, a plea for a reform of our nasty habits, but this was not the central theme of his speech. Mr Waddle's was the best presented, most skilfully prepared, most experienced address, and it deserved to win. It was not, however, oratory.

Brutes as we are, Mr Hendrikse, who was placed second, thought that we could do well to sit back and allow our imaginations to show us the way to future greatness "To Dream" as he put it. A much more subdued Mr Hendrikse from last year's Mahatma Ghandi, he told the audience how great events had occurred, and the very course of history had been altered because of visionaries like Ghandi, Joan of Arc, the St. Lawrence Seaway builders.

This was cool, thoughtful and impressive, but the audience, at least this member of it, had the feeling that he was being told something which he could take or leave as he liked.

This failure, or perhaps near-miss, to get audience involvment, meant that Mr Hendrikse, again, did not win the contest but was possibly closer than the judges said he was.

Firmly Set

Miss Boyle in her speech restricted her attack to the South African racial policy and this placed her third equal. There can be no doubt that Miss Boyle has studied this matter closely, has read a lot, and has very firmly set views on the subject.

This is of course an essential prerequisite to the delivery of an oration, but it is not the only one, and Miss Boyle's speech, admirable as its message was, probably lost out on its presentation.

The subject "Aspects of the South African Racial situation" is of course, very topical, and perhaps all the more dangerous for that, in that the audience probably have decided views of their own on it, but it contains the elements of oratory.

With all this in her favour, plus the fine voice which Miss Boyle last year showed us she possesses, it was all the greater pity that she chose to present her speech in the way she did. The dramatic moments sounded almost as if Miss Boyle were a little girl, who wanted the African blacks to have equality and was annoyed because they didn't.

An almost petulant attitude to the subject probably cost Miss Boyle a higher placing. After all, to shout, is not necessarily to be emphatic.

Mr Hamlin, who was also third equal, chose as his subject "Orwell—his plea" and this was a closely reasoned, intelligent plea to recognise man as something more than a maker of machines. From the opening quotation from John Stewart Mill "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion ..." to the conclusion, Mr Hamlin stressed his message and did so very effectively.

Germ

There was here the germ of a true oration. Perhaps it was the didactic, matter of fact way in which it was presented which put Mr Hamlin only third. The art of persuasion is not often found in a classroom. There can be no doubt though that Mr Hamlin in his subject and in the preparation came closer to true oratory than most of the contestants.

Mr O'Brien "Charles Stewart Parnell" had the unenviable task of opening the proceedings, and he did it well, from the grim picture of poverty ridden 19th century Ireland to the description of Parnell walking through the House of Commons deserted by his petty minded supporters.

Mr O'Brien gave an effective and in places moving picture of Parnell—the man and the leader, his love for Kitty O'Shea, and his destruction by "friends" who "put themselves in the place of the Almighty, and passed judgment on him."

Relieved of the necessity to give minute biographical details Mr O'Brien perhaps best showed how the change in the rules of the contest can be a move for the better.

Mr Hogg "Forces of Unreason" gave an informative and entertaining speech on the pernicious work of the advertising man "you don't buy oranges any more—you buy "Vitality"; the sapping of man's powers of decision by the unprincipled play on the subconscious was the theme, and it was well put over.

After all it had been taken from a good book. This was not, of course, oratory, but it was a message skilfully prepared, entertainingly put over, and providing food for thought. If one gets all this—who wants an oration?

Mr Trehey—"A new New Zealand" had a very good speech. His three points were the sapping of initiative by welfare legislation, self-seeking politicians, and unnecessary attachment to Britain. On these a plea for a foundation of a new New Zealand was based. It was a great pity the audience did not hear about it.

Prize

To Mr Trehey must go the prize for 11 minutes of entertaining improvisation. It wasn't oratory, it was barely a speech, but it was extremely amusing.

One cannot expect perfect memorisation of every speech, and it was obvious after the first minute that Mr Trehey had forgotten all that he had prepared. It would be unfair to judge him on any of what followed, but from one who is a philistine at heart, thank you Mr Trehey.

To Mr Larsen went the position of last speaker for the evening, and in his competent way he concluded proceedings very ably, with a plea for "Individualism." "We are second hand," he said, "Our ideas, our books and entertainment, our conversation are all something that has been given to us, not something we have made for ourselves."

This was calm, with a touch of light sarcasm, and certainly it was soundly based. Again the plea for something better was preceded by a destructive criticism of the audience, as New Zealanders, but Mr Larsen has not yet got Mr Waddle's powers to override this sort of thing.

And it was probably this, which cost Mr Larsen some mention in the places, for the theme of the necessity for self decision was a very sound one.

The judges, Mrs M. McKenzie, Dr. G. A. Currie and Mr J. C. White went into the judging of the contest very thoroughly, and the Debating Society should be grateful for the interest which they took in the first contest under the amended rules.

The Prime Minister, presenting the medal said he had enjoyed the contest and took the opportunity of making his peace with Mr Trehey.

The chairman was last year's winner, Mr J. M. Whitta.