Public Speaking with The Word Nerds

Dave Shepherd and Howard Chang discuss public speaking. First they dissect the phenomenon, go over the various aspects and necessary qualities and finally close off with practical pointers. Apart from the usual quality (the best kind of radio), this issue is also very practical. You nervous guys who are to engage in public speaking: this podcast may prove to some help.

The rude word of the week, if less helpful, is one of the regular sections and the one that is always the most charming, if naughty, still educational section. As always I have this tiny contest with myself, if I can guess up front what the rude word is going to be. This time my guess was demagogue, but it turned out to be rabble-rouser, which is somehow a synonym - yay! Not the first time I got it nearly right.

This is the language podcast I stick to. It is entertaining, funny, educational and charming at the same time.

Writing Show about self-publishing (again)

On the Writing Show we are beginning to see the subject of self-publishing becoming a genuine thread. There were comments, monologues, a panel discussion and now an interview with the CEO of one of the leading self-publishing companies. Paula B spoke with Susan Driscoll of iUniverse. What sticks with me as a bottom-line is: publishing makes no author rich. He may make a living at best, but neither traditional nor new age style publishing is gonna bring in the big bucks. The J.K. Rowlings and Dan Browns are the exceptions that prove the case.

Go and listen to Susan and to the rest of the thread, if you like, but I haven't heard much new stuff. I can see the positions taken and I am neither drawn to nor repelled by any way of publishing. And my blog, I write it because I like.

What is much more gratifying is that Paula read my comment at the end of the show. It was a reaction to the show about Tolkien and Caroll and the issue of telling versus showing. I have written my thoughts also in my blog and also mailed to Paula. Now she picked that up and broadcasted them. In the next show there is going to be another comment of mine...

What is the matter with antimatter?

BBC's In Our Time gave a shot at antimatter. We have had tough physics concepts before. I recall enjoying the issue about gravitational waves, but this time around, the show was lost on me. Not that is was bad, quite to the contrary. In Our Time was as excellent as it always is; antimatter just didn't click with me. It remained totally esoteric.

Isn't that a paradoxical thing? That a discipline as concrete as physics eventually runs into such immensely flighty concepts as antimatter? Apparently anywhere, no matter how concrete and practical, if you look long enough, dig deep enough, think persistently enough, you'll find yourself in a maze of abstractions. You can be as naturalistic, rational and fact oriented you like, but nothing helps. You have to interpret, generalize, construct and deconstruct and before you know it, you are playing a game of words.

Another thing may chip in. Something that was said on this show of In Our Time. As far as our reality is concerned, what we have access to, the world of matter (mostly) consists, in hard physics terms, of only one billionth of all there is. In other words, all that we can possible observe and lay our hands on, can never be more than a tiny fraction of the whole of nature. It is like trying to read a whole library of books while having access to one printed character in it. Try imagining more characters, whole words, sentences, a printed sheet, the semantics, the syntax, the whole book. More books, different books (non-fiction, fiction, poetry, drama), magazines, newspapers, microfilm, index cards, digitalized text and other media. All in the library, but from the one character, sheer conjecture and crazy conjecture at that.

Hannibal Barca on the couch

"Why, Mr. Barca," Dr. Patrick Hunt asks, "did you have to cross the Alps?" Why did he hate the Romans? Why did he have to go around them across the highest mountains in the region? Dr. Hunt takes us from a formative experience in young Hannibal's life, through the religion and culture of the Carthaginians in order to explain. Hannibal was taught to hate the Romans with a religious fervor and induced in believing to be blessed on the mountains.

On the altar of the Carthaginian god Baal, young Hannibal had to swear he would hate the Romans throughout his life. This oath made a great impact, because Hannibal knew, normally he would have been sacrificed to Baal, as was customary. In stead he lived. He also lived as Hannibal, Chani-Baal, the grace of Baal. He lived, as it were, on borrowed time, only on the condition of hating the Romans.

Baal, was supposed to live on a mountain. He was supposed to throw lightning, Barca, Hannibal's family name. So, by the grace of his God, on a life quest to fight the Romans, Hannibal could only feel the intimate connection with Baal. Hence, if Baal was at home in the mountains, so was Hannibal. The Romans, by contrast, a propos, were not, they were plain people. Their weaknes lay from the Alps, and Hannibal felt his strength was there. He had to prove it to bout. And that is why he had to take on the Romans and he had to go the long and hard way, right through the high mountains.

Go and look for these lectures on Hannibal on iTunes U, Stanford.

David van Nuys invited by students

Shrinkrapradio's Dr. Dave took a three hour drive up to San Joaquin County in order to speak for a psychology club at the local college. He was invited there by a listener to his podcast and met with a host of some 50 students who follow the psychology courses offered. The interaction with the group was taped and brought out as an episode in the shrinkrap series. This could have been terrible listening, but not so.

It is witness to the great radio talent of Dr. Dave together with his interview skills that it is actually great to listen in on the conversations. One really feels to have been present. What is a great strength of David's is that he neither tries to impress nor please his audience. He conducts himself quite naturally and balanced making for a pleasant focal point skipping from one student to the next for a short exchange. He also has a knack for taking their point, delivering a short answer and hand a return question that is pointy and brief and inviting an answer, neither dismissive, nor short nor too lengthy.

The fact that he truly connects with his audience is shown at several points where he unknowingly touches exactly on that point that is of interest to the student. Like when he tells about child psychology, only to find out that for the student who asked the question this is exactly her main interest. He is struck by it himself and makes a remark about it, but if one listens carefully more such connection points can be detected. Hence, the show turns into an experience I am glad to have had and that underlines once more what a unique and warm podcast Shrinkrapradio is.

While in the middle of the series

I would like to update the regular readers of my blog, of what is going on. I used produce more reviews, so why so little these days? Part of the explanation are the holidays, which kept me occupied away from the computer on family values. Looking back, however, I can see enough listening time, I managed to put in, but none of that has become definitive. I am in the middle of going over a number of series of podcasts, none of which has given reason to make an intermittent post. So normally I am waiting for a conclusive post after the end.

However, on two series, that are nice to follow more or less simultaneously, I would like to point out, at least, how much I enjoy them, while being in the middle. One is Berkeley's History 4A (The Ancient Mediterranean World) and the other is from Stanford and this is a lecture series by Thomas Sheehan about the historical Jesus. (To be picked up in iTunes through Stanford on iTunes U)

What both courses do for me is reorganize whatever I knew of the ancient history of the region I live in and disconnect it from the religious predisposition of my knowledge and reorder it on the basis of what is the scientific consensus as we speak. Not only by handing the facts, but also by showing the process through which we come to this history. This is particularly rewarding as it demystifies the story and delivers to me the reconstruction without all the added dogmatic meanings.