The Hanover Collaboration

I was reading transcripts of presidential speeches and comparing usage. I think you can probably blame the TV for the degradation. In text, people are willing to sort through a field of commas since you can always re-read. On screen, it’s got to be a bit clearer.

I am sort of dissappointed with Bush. I know his speechwriters have tried to step his speeches up a little. Remember the attempts at imagery in the inaguaration? But when he can’t use fancy words or non-trivial constructions, he just can’t make a memorable speech. Part of the problem is that it needs to be a string of soundbites and convenient quotations. Part of the problem is that he is not a good speaker. I think a lot of the problem is that he wants to keep a common-man appeal.

I was doing word counts on transcripts and Bush with 17.3 words per sentence pretty only uses commas for lists. The Gettysburg Address is 26.8 words per sentence. Kennedy’s could pull an impressive 26.2. I was comparing Kerry and Bush in the debate transcripts but I got upset and had to stop. (WCing this page, Cosmo can also throw down in the 26s while I have a pitiful 16.)

I was just thinking that, in light of the soundbites, I would go for longer sentences rather than shorter. Then my soundbites would carry a little more context around with them.
Consider the sentence:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Bush would have made that bugger into 5 sentences and the soundbite would have just been the last one. “This government… shall not perish from the Earth”. And the meaning would have come accross differently.

But lets say the evening news wants to run the “shall not perish from the Earth.” bit, from Abe’s version. They could start at “this government” just like George but I think the journalists would hesitate at the change—it’s missing the main verb, “resolve”. They could start the soundbite at “we here highly resolve” and hope to get away with it.

But the astute reader/listener would notice a lack of parallel structure¹ when the “that” comes around, betraying that “we” isn’t actually the start of the sentence. The “that” refers to the “great task” that is the object of the real sentence. To get that, they would have to start at the beginning. So if they wanted a complete soundbite including the money shot “shall not perish” they would have to include that whole thing.

¹ Actually, I’m wrong about that “that.” If it refers to resolve, that would make a soundbite starting at “we” perfectly legal. I would call this guy a run-on.

But then you have it starting with “rather.” Rather than what? Maybe they should just quote the whole thing.

If Cosmo were my speechwriter, I would have him make it notoriously difficult to make soundbites. “If they want to quote me,” I’d tell him, “it should be at least a paragraph—ideally several.” “Oh and use a lot of em-dashes rather than ellipsis and semicolons. Ellipsis break my rythm and semicolons intimidate me.” “No, I don’t have a problem with commas as long as there aren’t too many—I just don’t want to get lost and put the wrong emphasis on a clause.” “I don’t care what ‘looks professional’—I mean, you could use curly braces if you want, it’s not like anybody is going to be reading it besides me.”