The Adventure of conversation

Title

Creator

Dimnet, Abbe Ernest

Language

English

Year

1968

Subject

Conversation.

Communication.

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

Condensed from “What We Live By.”

Intelligent conversation can be a source of good information and mental improvement if its rules are observed.

Fulltext

■ Intelligent conversation can be a source of good information and mental improvement if its rules are observed. THE ADVENTURE OF CONVERSATION Words are deeds. When ever we send syllables into the world their effect is as infallible on the people who hear them as it is on the ethereal waves. A few words can destroy happiness, and all that the Ancients have said about the bonds with which words chain our souls is true. Therefore words ought to be used with care and with a proper sense of responsibility. Our choice is between saying insignificant things, saying nothing, or reading and thinking before saying anything. The brevity of a pointed answer to a question worth our while gives us an artistic pleasure. But how rare it is! To most people talking is what read ing has become: something apart from its object, a bo dily, rather than a mental, exercise. Men accuse women of talking for talk’s sake. But many men are incorrigible babblers. Who sits through the long day in the smoking room of the train, talking, talking? Who says nothing, but says it through the hideous night in hotel-rooms or at the club? I have been the victim of extraordinary performances. Men fight for the floor and keep it without compunction or even misgiv ings. Then, there are men - and women whose eager faces in form you, before you have said a word, that the moment they open their mouths it will be to treat you to in sufferable details about their uninteresting lives. This, I am sorry to say, happens especially in America, where there is hardly a vestige of conversation left. Worse than that, the word has ceased to have any meaning. The question so familiar in Europe: “What was the subject of conversation at dinner last night?” is never heard in the United States. A “general conversation” means one in which, no mat July 1968 31 ter how many people are as sembled, only one voice is heard at a time. Americans who always credit the “La tins” with vehemence and exuberance, would be sur prised indeed to see how a dozen people in Rome or Madrid, or Buenos Aires, can keep their native efferves cence in check to enjoy a conversation. They have a sense of absolute freedom, yet they obey two rules which were .impressed upon me in childhood till they be came law: pas d’ apartes et pas de monologues; no asides and no floor-holding! I have a vivid memory of the capacity which American women show in club delibe rations, for knowing their minds and for expressing themselves tersely and cour teously. Yet the same women a moment after their deli beration was over, would take their part in a brain racking chorus of multilogues which did not seem to inconvenienc.e them in the least. American voices are accused of being shrill, but how can anyone avoid shrillness in a bird market? When there are six people in a room in the United States there are three conversations inevitably carried on in a high key, and dozens of times I have found that, even at a lunch party of four, it was impossible to suppress the rivalry of two voices. Reciprocal volleys are poured out as they used to be in the naval battles of yore when the guns answer ed one another nose to nose. Nothing is so laughable as a dinner-party of that kind given in honor of Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So. The poor lion has the look of having been caught in a trap. Sometimes a lady next to him, straining her neck to hear what he says in the confusion, signals to the other guests that this distinguished person is say ing something that it is un forgivable to miss, but they look at her frankly and re sume their piping or shout ing. What are the causes of this state of affairs which certain ly did not exist in America 60 years ago? Why should Americans, who prove such excellent listeners at a lec ture and love a serious dis cussion, show themselves such squanderers of words? Perhaps women, regarding a general topic as a rival, have 32 Panorama compelled the man next to them to act as if they should be the center of attention. Almost certainly the chief cause is the habit of giving large parties. A general con versation is not possible when 20 people sit at table but it is when only a few guests are added to the family din ner and find the father lead ing the conversation, as he still does in intelligent Jewish homes. Many traveled American women resent the unjust in feriority which the hubhub habit gives to otherwise dis tinguished parties. One ex perience of real conversation is enough to make even the inveterate teller of stale sto ries realize that stories are the stupid man’s wit. People who. evep once have felt how much the magnetism of a small but select audience can add to their powers, or who simply have had the re velation that conversation is an adventure the outcome of which never can be foreseen, crave the return of the expe rience. I often hear regrets and, once or twice, I have seen rebellion. If I had not witnessed the scene myself I could hardly believe that a State governor after vainly trying to put in a word which four ladies mercilessly drowned every time, lost his temper and struck the table with his fist, thundering that he “did not want to talk all the time, but wanted to talk some.” Some hostesses are bold enough to start a reaction. “Do please, listen to this” is heard sometimes in a queru lous tone. A friend of mine who is a rare appraiser of good things does all she can. When the dessert comes, she institutes a sort of forum which it takes a few minutes to realize is only a conversa tion. It is a success every time. One feels then how many excellent things must have perished in the storm of voices still raging a minute before, and how much a campaign for conversation dinners would do for a coun try which to-day has no con versation but which, how ever, possesses all that could make first-class conversation. What happens is that the effusiveness and the lack of self-control created in such an atmosphere finally, bring a sensation of barrenness. It is too evident that there can July 1968 33 be no action through words when words are crazily let loose, for action must be pre meditated, guided, and sus tained. If we want our life not to be aimless, if we hate to think of our words as still born seeds, we must never approach company without being on our guard against its sterilizing influence. Not everybody would endorse what Keats said about a room full of people distressing and exhausting his soul, but prac tically everybody has a vague consciousness that company expects from them not their best but their most trivial, and are tempted ac cordingly. Simple remedies will be found to work. Perhaps you can remember one of the few coversations really worth while you once had with some fellow-being. Ten mi nutes in the twilight with a person whom you felt really possessed of an idea, and of a passionate longing to make you believe in it, may still be alive in your memory as it is in mine. This you will not recall without a con sciousness of personal dig nity and an accompanying resolve not to give in and not to give up. Indeed words can be actions, and, when they are not, they are a waste for him who says them and more or less of an insult for him who has to hear them. As Dis raeli said, life is too short for us not to try to make it great. —Abbe Ernest Dimnet, con densed from “'What We Live By.” RELIGION UNESSENTIAL To have a positive religion is not necessary. To be in harmony with yourself and the universe is what counts, and this is possible without positive and spe cific formulation in words. — Goethe. 34 Panorama

pages

31-34

Media