Customer Reviews

Conversation: A History of a Declining Art

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Stephen Miller's historical study of conversation, its development and decline, is one of the most provocative books I've read in a long time. Conversing is something we spend a good part of our life doing, yet how many of us think consciously of what it really is (and was) or how we might better our understanding and practice of it?

Miller has an impressive breadth and depth of knowledge but does not overwhelm the reader with this. Rather, he tells his story with wit and clarity, guiding us from the Book of Job and Plato's Symposium (whose discussion of Socrates as a conversationalist is fascinating) to 18th century Britain, where we meet brilliant conversationalists of a different sort, Defoe, Swift and Johnson, among them, all the way to the 21st century U.S. and the factors that have caused a worrisome loss in conversational ability.

There are gems of information throughout the book: the difference between "raillery" and "repartee" (the first is part of successful conversing, the second isn't); the crucial role of London's coffee houses in conversation (there was 4,000 of them at one time); the nature of conversation in the 17th and 18th salons of Paris, which were headed by women of culture; and judgments about various public figures and their conversation (Stalin delivered boring monologues, Clinton talked more than he listened, and Goethe was drowned out by the chatter of Madame de Stael).

Miller has provided me with a lifetime supply of amusing anecdotes and quotes appropriate for "cocktail conversation." If I have one complaint--and it's not a complaint about the book at all, but of how it affected me--it's that I have become so obsessed with the subject that I can no longer carry on a conversation without grading myself!

This would be a great gift for those in your circle who don't know how to converse.

Miller's faith in the value of good-humored, reasonable talk among civilized people flies in the face of the current tendency toward opinionated,virulent, and self-serving public discourse. Yes, he rants occasionally, but the ranting is funny and right-on, a slam-dunk comment on the level to which manners have slumped in our age. His scholarship is impeccable and his style a model of what conversation should be--witty and wise. Barbara Gardner, PhD, Mendocino, CA

Every now and then a book comes along which focuses on some aspect of our everyday life experience , and in tracing its history and development provides us with a sense that a new world has opened up to us which we had all along and did not know about it. So Stephen Miller in focusing upon the subject of ' conversation' makes us understand ourselves and our world in a new and yet somehow familiar way.
Whether it is Job denying his friends' false words of comfort, or Socrates disquietingly upsetting the settled citizens of Athens ' conversation ' is for Miller a 'discussion of great and small topics by people who practice mutual tolerance for opposing viewpoints." As Miller sees it the great climax of Conversation as Art came in the eighteenth century with Johnson, Boswell. Hume, Lady Montagu, the whole coffeehouse cast who colorfully lambasted each other with their own often wildly imaginative opinions.
Miller fills his pages with anecdotes and memorable remarks. A selection is provided by E. Rothstein in his highly favorable review of the book in the 'NY Times'.

"Cicero gave advice about conversation (It ought "to be gentle and without a trace of intransigence; it should also be witty"). Montaigne hailed its pleasures ("I find the practice of it the most delightful activity in our lives"). Henry Fielding praised it ("This grand Business of our Lives, the Foundation of every Thing, either useful or pleasant"). Adam Smith prescribed it (calling it one of "the most powerful remedies for restoring the mind to its tranquillity").

Miller also records the remarks those who were critical of conversation such as Rousseau, Wordsworth,and many of the great American writers who preferred to converse with the Solitudes of Nature.
In fact Miller sees the United States as a place which especially in recent years with the development of so many high- tech forms of efficient, but laconic communication as being somewhat hostile to the art of conversation. Harold Bloom in writing about this book says in this regard that Miller sadly writes an 'elegy ' to the 'art of Conversation' while at the same time celebrating it.
I would only add one small personal remark. My great friend and teacher , the late David Hertzberg of blessed memory, with whom I would speak for hours used to say that ' The conversation of friends is the highest Torah'( Meaning the highest form of spiritual activity) I doubt that Stephen Miller had this kind of ' conversation' in mind but in surveying the subject he has made a real contribution to that 'general conversation of all intelligent people ' which is one form of human culture at its highest.
."

An affecting, enagaging rumination on the past, present, and future of conversation. The book is strongest in examining the great 18th century conversationalists -- Hume, S. Johnson -- and in offering observations on "conversibility" in the modern age. In some of the other historical chapters, Miller does not seem quite as well informed, and the thread of the essay stretches a bit thin.

But overall the book is fun and very much worth reading. It makes one appreciate the delights of conversation and yearn to be a better conversationalist.

According to the author and any number of conversation experts from the ancient past to the present, conversation is not simply ordinary brief exchanges necessitated by daily life. No, conversation is practically an art form engaged in by cultured and educated people concerning issues and ideas of the day. It must be conducted in an agreeable manner: with give and take, tolerance, politeness, and even wit. Boorishness, argumentativeness, and lecturing - all undermine conversation. Furthermore, highly controversial and divisive issues especially those involving politics and religion are to be handled with care if not avoided.

From an historical perspective, the author focuses mostly on 18th century England where refined conversation of the sort described above took place in literally thousands of coffee shops and clubs. Apparently it was distressful to those who were poor conversationalists, as they were then relegated to the background. Women, some renown, were participants. Many of the famous authors and personages of that era appear on the pages of this book: Hume, Pope, Johnson, Boswell, Addison, etc. Noted Frenchman Roussuau disregarded conversation for its hypocrisy and the use of politeness as concealment. The author draws a contrast between the ancient Spartans and Athenians - the former eschewed conversation as detrimental to the military state, while the latter had a rich cultural life with Plato, Socrates, and the like.

The leading figures of colonial America, as Englishmen, were conversationalists. However, the author as well as any number of visitors and chroniclers of American life finds conversation to be quite limited across American history. The reasons are varied: lack of learning and suitable locations, the strong, silent American personality, and the commercial nature of American society requiring instrumental talk. Americans have a tendency to use conversation as a form of therapy for personal problems or to use it, a la Dale Carnegie, to influence others - both distortions in the author's estimation.

Modern culture is in many ways hostile to conversation. The author points to the advocacy of violence in some cultural forums. The rise of personal electronics is isolating, whether it be iPods or laptop computers. Completely distorting the fact that conversation involves actual participation, it is now a spectator sport: watched on television or listened to on right-wing talk radio. And those supposed conversations and talk are often highly opinionated and acrimonious - bound to make the cultured Europeans of years ago turn over in their graves. The CNN program Crossfire epitomizes the breakdown of conversation and the pathetic substitute.

The book is just a bit rambling as the author ranges back and forth across countries, eras, and people. He notes some very fledgling attempts to start discussion groups through book stores, coffee shops, and the like, but he concludes that prospects for conversation in the US are not good. More could be said. The absence of conversation and the rise of propaganda disseminated through the media and advertisers, if not even educational institutions, make the prospects for our entire democracy quite tenuous. We seem to have lost the broad social understanding that can be achieved through conversation; now we have the partisanship that is rooted in acrimonious shouting with extremist consequences. It is difficult to see the path back form this morass.

First off, this is not really a history of conversation, as most of the narrative is focused on 18th and 19th century England, the author's specialty. Nonetheless, the book contains enough general historical background, anecdotes and insight to make it worth reading (even though I really had to struggle to get past the central chapters). Miller seems to be ambivalent about modern technology's effect on conversation, and lists several of what he calls Conversation Avoidance Devices. While an iPod certainly does fall into this category (then again, do we really want to be conversing all the time with everyone who happens to stand nearby?), the Internet does not, as chat rooms, blogs, email etc. obviously open up different ways to do conversation -- ways that the author does not seem to appreciate or enjoy as much as a personal interaction at the coffee house. But why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

My book arrived quickly and in good condition. I would highly recommend this seller.

I had high hopes for this book, and am enjoying certain passages. However, it really smacks of Term/Research Paper (sometimes endless quotes with no conclusory statement). I find it more enjoyable when Miller is simply formulating his own conclusions and opinions.

Great read offering possible insights and reasons for the obvious decline in casual conversation in America specifically and the west in general.
Technology is a big part of the cause. How foolish is it to have a family in the same house messaging each other? What ever happened to face-to-face communication in the family, in the neighborhood, in the village, in the country?

The idea that conversation is in decline seems rather like the idea that every younger generation is a disappointment and declension from the high standards of the past. Anyway, it is worth conversing about/discussing and the book will please many readers. I was a little disappointed in that the book seemed to assume little knowledge in its readers. If you have read Boswell's Life of Johnson, taken an interest in Bloomsbury and so on [surely most British people who like books and have had an arts education], the book does not offer much new. I felt I was being told in a pleasant enough way things I already knew.