Saturday, January 28, 2006
I arose early to judge the debate tournament, though I restricted myself to interpretative and public speaking events. In the first round (duo interpretation), two girls performed snippets from Aristophanes' play, Lysistrata, with reference in their introduction and conclusion to The Lysistrata Project, about which I had been previously unaware. I believe I ranked them either second or first, for they both conveyed action very well. One girl had to make transitions between several characters, having to revert for some of them, and she did thus consistently. Another group performed something by Richard Armour which I enjoyed, but cannot now recollect the name of. I perked at mention of his name, for in eighth grade I memorized a poem of his I had found written somewhere and took a particular shining to:
How cunningly the ice holds backCommunication Analysis (round two, or, rather, round B of prelims) I do not recall from high school competition, but was straightforward and similar in many structural aspects to an original oratory. It consists of examining something, such as a campaign strategy, through the effectiveness or lack thereof of its author's method of conveyance. A couple of the speeches followed too strict a formula and were therefore commonplace and dull, but the others incorporated witticisms and other rhetorical devices well enough. Had I continued competition at the college level, I probably would have liked Communication Analysis, for I find persuasion and propaganda techniques interesting and widely applicable areas of study.
And lingers underneath,
And lets you raise and tilt the glass,
Then smacks you in the teeth.
The third round (prose) consisted of three humorous pieces and one dramatic, the latter about bulimia and anorexia. To pull that off, this girl needed to be over-the-top; she needed to evoke compassion, fear, or something. Unfortunately, though she spoke well enough, I had to rank her last. The guy I ranked first interpreted something that was both funny and deeply introspective, in just the right manner, I felt. I could definitely see how almost anyone else might have misconveyed the serious message beneath the humour, but he pulled it off very well. The other two guys had good pieces and good performances, but weren't quite at the level of the one I ranked first. It was a fun round to watch.
Lastly I judged After Dinner Speech[es], which resembled original oratory more. Three of those were very clever, and the other two had some humour that they used less effectively. Since the latter thus as well had weak messages and loose connections, I ranked them fourth and fifth with little remorse, but the top three were more difficult. I gave speaker points of 23, 22, and 21 for those spots.
My thighs finally feel much better, so I went to the rec after rounds, with all good intents of engaging in my now-typical ninety-minute routine. However, I do have a splitting sinus headache, which April can eat, and after about twenty-three minutes on Dieter, the headache combined with some unusual heart palpitations compelled me to hop off.
Jetzt habe ich den Arbeit. Schade.
[Lauree Frances Keith concluded this diatribe at 3:21 PM]