Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 36, Issue 924, 26 April 1957, Page 11

Sir-I had looked forward. to this discussion by the two speakers, but after hearing it I must»confess to much disappointment. This disappointment I think was caused by two important factors: (1) The inequality of the two speakers’ ability: the lady being much superior to her opponent who, incidentally, did not enhance his claim to speak on the subject by continually pronouncing the word ZEALAND as if it was spelt ZEALUND, thereby not giving the correct vowel value, which, after all, is one of the faults they deplored. (2) The other factor was, I thought, the somewhat "brutal" manner in which the lady verbally thrashed us for our mode of speaking. Seeing she has been spending most of her time in examining candidates for speech and drama diplomas, it does not say much for our New Zealand teachers when she speaks so harshly about their efforts to speak correct English. One point I agree wholeheartedly with was her refence to politicians. It was here that I thought the "mere man" lost his opportunity for smart repartee. In my fifty years of stage work, one: of "the first things they taught us was to articulate properly, and I have found on many occasions when lecturing that people you would naturally think knew how to speak in public, lamentably failed. I am convinced that in the majority of cases it is carelessness that lies at the root of our poor conversational and public efforts. We are not all born with voices like the late ForbesRobertson, but we can do a lot to make the most of the voice that was given to us. I have proved down through the years, whether it be at the microphone, telephone or on the platform, that the real secret of speaking is always to be natural. Don’t try to borrow someone else’s technique. Finally, I do hope that the lady, by some of her remarks, did not try to create a suggestion. of class distinction in this voung and. happv

land.

THESPIS

(Auckland). x