Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike or Victoria College Review 1938

Plunket Medal Contest

page 20

Plunket Medal Contest

During his lifetime, Wiremu Tamehana achieved several notable distinctions; but to have been, as he was this year, the subject for the winning orations in both Bledisloe and Plunket Medal contests, is a posthumous distinction which has as yet been achieved by no other character. Treating his subject with restraint and sympathy, Mr. W. Wah was successful in gaining the judges' verdict, and in giving Wiremu his second victory in university oratory contests during 1938.

Reverting to the usual venue, the contest was held in the Concert Chamber of the Town Hall. The dignity of the occasion no doubt demands the use of such a place, yet one cannot help feeling that in the more homely surroundings of the College gymnasium, speakers and audience are brought in much closer contact, thus placing at a discount, flamboyant touches, and bogus oratory of the elocutionary type. Distance in space readily becomes distance in vocabulary.

The difficult task of thawing the audience fell to Mr. R. L. Meek, who spoke to us on Beethoven. To speak first at a Plunket Medal contest is to be automatically ruled out from the final reckoning and under the circumstances Mr. Meek must be deemed unlucky not to have gained a place. His style was a little too elocutionary and polished, but his ending was the most apt and best-timed of the evening.

Derek Freeman s speech on John Cornford was the conundrum of the evening. Obviously capable of using the personality of this young English poet, who died in Spain last year, as a means of arousing interest in the Spanish War and awakening sympathy for the Spanish people in their struggle against international Fascism, he chose rather to give for ten minutes a semi-poetical dissertation on the ethics of the Spanish question. Mr. Freeman was the only speaker of the evening who rose to real oratory, and he gave the impression that had he told us more about the subject of his speech, he could have done all he set out to do, and in addition have won the medal.

Mr. R. W. Edgley selected Disraeli for his subject. If you don't believe in the right of the white man to exploit the black, it is difficult to get enthusiastic over Disraeli's career. Mr. Edgley appeared only mildly excited about the whole business, but nevertheless gave a thoroughly competent and comprehensive survey of Our Hero s life. Mr. Edgley would do well to remember that repetition to be used with effect as an oratorical device, needs to be accompanied by a varied inflexion of the voice, and should have as its objective such an end as climax, bathos, or contrast. The smoothness of his delivery earned Mr. Edgley second place.

In Marshal Chang Hsueh Liang, A. R. Perry had chosen what was potentially the best subject of the evening. To a career containing such a wealth of exciting incident and full of so much that is of significance in contemporary affairs, it is impossible to do full justice in any speech of twelve minutes, however good it may be. Mr. Perry made an excellent attempt and very nearly succeeded. As his voice is not very flexible, his delivery does not show sufficient light and shade. He would have been well advised, therefore, to have chosen the most exciting incidents possible, having due regard to the theme of his talk, and to tell them in as stirring a manner as possible. Mr. Perry is improving steadily, and with a little more vigour infused into his work, would be difficult to keep out of the final reckoning.

We trust that Margaret Shortall is not going to be discouraged by her speech on Mustapha Kemal. Everyone knows she can do better. Indeed, there can be little doubt that whenever she likes to give her mind to the thorough preparation of a suitable subject, the judges will have to work hard to deny her victory.

page 21

We would like to hear Mr. Myers again next year. The arrangement of subject matter (concerning Garibaldi) which he decided upon this year did not give him scope to show what he was really capable of doing. When he reached the concluding stages and developed a comparison of Garibaldi and Mussolini, one saw plain evidence that Mr. Myers knows how to choose the apt word and how to arrest attention. It now remains for him to develop more vigour, and more light and shade in the inflexion of his voice, to give us something really enjoyable.

Mr. McCulloch spoke on Rajah Brooke. The phrasing and construction of the speech were good, the ideas and vocabulary excellent, but it did not quite "go across." Mr. McCulloch needs to abandon the practice of using public speaking as a form of dialectical exercise, and to speak only when and as his convictions dictate. Were he to do this he would develop a much easier manner on the platform (his greatest need as a speaker), and a much more convinced and convincing style. His emotional earnestness tends to become transparent.

Mr. Wah, on the other hand, appears to be able to speak convincingly on any subject or its opposite without any object. He won this year's contest because he had more polish than any of the other speakers. His delivery was smooth, his platform manner easy without being too free, his voice used with varied inflexion and with light and shade. The subject matter was good but much more might have been made of the incident at Auckland leading to the formation of the King Movement; of Tamehana's refusal of the royal title, and of the confiscation at the end of the war, of land belonging to the loyal Maoris. Mr. Wah's earnestness tends at times to become a little thin—50 percent, sincere. 50 percent. Nationalist Party.

We recommend for Mr. Wah the same prescription as for Mr. McCulloch, and in the meantime congratulate him upon his success.

Discussions over the last few years as to what constitutes oratory have produced some remarkable effusions and it is not proposed to re-open the subject now. Specifically, the only test of an oration is its effect upon the audience. Consequently the only really satisfactory way of judging it is by the applause— whether it is "propaganda" or not makes no difference. (Incidentally, what is "propaganda?" Aren't all. Plunket Medal speeches "propaganda?" Isn't a speech lauding Disraeli just as much "imperialist propaganda" as a speech soliciting support for Spain is "democratic propaganda?")

Still, from all the discussion, several points arise. Among them are these:

You must be clear-cut and precise in the presentation of your subject-matter. Praise or blame, eulogise or condemn, but don't sit on the rail and be "impartial." You can't do it, and anyhow that's reserved nowadays for the editors of newspapers.

The judges having had a surfeit of learned elocutionary declamations (which can never be "oratory") one is quite willing to reward naturalness. So if you can speak at all, don't cramp your style by learning your speech from the beginning. Learn the highlights if you must, and possibly the peroration; for the rest, prepare thoroughly, read your subject from top to bottom, sort out and classify your ideas. Then trust to the inspiration of the moment. If your muse fails you, it will be just too bad; but you'll find it won't fail you, and you'll get your reward in having given a good speech even if you get it no other way. The time when men learned speeches by heart and then practised them to actions, gowned, before a mirror, went when Demosthenes did.

Your subject is all-important. To appeal, it must have vitality. The time for giving the freaks of history a chance to make a twelve-minute comeback has passed too. Choose a man who means something to us Now. The need is urgent. There may be no Plunket Medal contest in 1939.

A. A. Chess.