Skip to main content

The lost art of conversation



Are we losing the art of conversation as we all seem "hooked" on connectivity and being "available" 24/7?    All too sadly it seems commonplace to see couples dining out with both on the phone or texting.   

The American satirist P.J. O'Rourke once claimed no topic was taboo at the dinner table. ''Even grandchildren can be discussed,'' he wrote, ''if you have adequate detachment to sketch them as the little beasts they are.''

Whatever the subject matter, O'Rourke advocated a few rules: the better the wine, the brighter the talk; mix good talkers with good listeners; never invite obsessives, even if they all share a passion. ''Six fervent devotees of French Symbolist poetry will be fine through soup, but by cheese and fruit they will be yelling at each other.''

Of course, O'Rourke was writing before the invention of YouTube. Nowadays, the French Symbolist devotees would be giggling at a video of a hamster eating popcorn on a piano long before the stilton had arrived.

Only a few years ago, it was considered uncouth to use a mobile phone at mealtime. But since phones got smart, they have become participants in table talk. They settle arguments when facts are in dispute. They entertain when conversation lags. Like many talkative guests, however, they have a tendency towards boorishness and, if allowed, will dominate discussion for hours. All it takes is a casual aside about some online clip and the evening spirals into a viewing festival, transforming even the most eloquent guest into a square-eyed zombie.

Something similar happened to Louise Howland on a recent camping trip. The moon was full and Mozart's Requiem was playing on someone's iPod. Talk turned to how the composer died. There were a few theories, but then someone looked it up on Wikipedia. ''That was the end of the conversation,'' Howland says."

Continue reading here.

Over at The New York Times a piece "In Defense of Ordinary Dinner Conversation" discusses much the same topic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more