Always look on the bright side: the Northern Lights, a cruise and a conversation

I mentioned in the previous post that we were hoping to catch a glimpse of the Northern Lights from a return boat trip from Tromso to Kirkeness, a few miles from Norway's northern border with Russia.

And 'glimpse', alas, turned out to be exactly what it was. Yes, we did see them, but not in the glorious technicolor to be seen on DVDs and from picture searches on Google. What we did see on a couple of nights were more like strangely-shaped moonlit clouds - good to have seen them, but hardly up to the sales blurb that had tempted us so far north in the middle of winter.

So here are a couple of handy tips for any readers who might be planning a similar trip

TIP 1: Find a more comfortable way of seeing them
The trouble with inspecting the Northern Lights from a boat is that, however warm and comfortable it may be, you have to go out on deck whenever they appear. Apart from the rush of passengers, many of whom were quite old and frail, the icy surface under foot made it quite a challenge just to remain vertical. Then, once you'd found a gap on the rail to hang on to, the freezing wind meant that you could only manage a few minutes of sky-gazing before the threat of hypothermia drove you inside again.

Another hazard, as unexpected as it was hilarious, was came from an idiot who came dashing out with a torch asking "where are they?" By the time he'd finished flashing his light into our eyes, none of us could see well enough to tell him where to look.

All of which suggests to me that a much more comfortable way of seeing the Northern Lights would be from a suitably located luxury hotel equipped with a heated greenhouse or conservatory, amply furnished with comfortable beds and/or sofas.

TIP 2: Beware of cruises that tell you where to sit
I've blogged before about people who routinely break the most basic rules of conversation (e.g. HERE). On the first night of the trip, we were allocated to a table at which, it turned out, the organisers were intending that we should sit for dinner on all four nights of the cruise.

It was a table for 4 people and, though I didn't have a stop-watch on me, I can report that the time spent speaking by each of us around the said table was not far off the following:

Speaker A: 94%
Speaker B: 3%
Speaker C: 2%
Speaker D: 1 %

After the first ten minutes, we'd had a full run-down of A's allergies and ailments, past and present. By the end of the meal, we knew how many times she'd been married, how many children and grandchildren she had, together with related face-sheet data on each of them (names, ages, occupations, where they lived + some of their medical histories too), why she and her current husband (Speaker D) lived where they lived, where it is in relation to the Tesco roundabout on the by-pass, which junction it was nearest to on the M1, what kind of house they live in, how much it had cost to buy compared with the one they'd sold, how much work had been needed to do it up (+ detailed costs of different home improvement projects), how she'd bought it while D was in hospital suffering from (cue more details about illnesses), which excursions they were planning to go on over the next few days (plus detailed explanations of why they'd selected some and not others), where the money to pay for holidays like this had come from (i.e. a late parent's estate, complete with details of how her share of it compared with that received by her siblings, about each of whom yet more details about etc., etc., etc.

During this unstoppable torrent, the only thing we managed to divulge about ourselves was that we live in Somerset (thankfully, a safe distance away from any junction on the M1).

I went straight from the table to the desk of the tour operator's representative, who confirmed that we were indeed going to have to sit through three more meals with Speaker A - and that no, this would not qualify us to get any of our money back. Nor was he able to provide any explanation or reason why the company saw fit to condemn its customers to such a miserable fate.

Luckily, he did have one useful tip: there were two separate sittings for dinner and it might be possible to arrange with the restaurant manager for us to escape to the other one - which I did and we did.

Needless to say, I shall be raising this matter if and when the company's customer-satisfaction questionnaire ever reaches me.

Looking on the bright side
In the meantime, the sheer awfulness of having to put up with this relentless violation of the most basic rules of turn-taking has spurred me on (yet again) to start planning the book about conversation that I've been threatening to write for at least 25 years. For that, at least, I am grateful to Speaker A, whose blistering performance may even provide the basis for a chapter (or two).

Hoping it's "au revoir, Perkins"

We're about to go on a cruise along the northern Norwegian coast in the hopes of catching a glimpse of the Northern Lights.

So I don't expect to be doing much blogging or tweeting over the next few days. However, I do very much hope that, for regular visitors, the answer to Jonathan Miller's question will be the opposite of Peter Cook's reply in this classic sketch from Beyond the Fringe:

50 years since John F Kennedy asked not... (3) Modelled for the media


This is the third in a series of posts to mark the 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy's inaugural speech on 20th January 1961. The first two were:
Now that the BBC website has gone live with an article and notes I wrote on the speech (HERE), I feel free to reproduce one of the points made in it, accompanied by another edited clip from the speech (above) and transcript (below).

The following section from the piece on the BBC website commends Kennedy for following 'the first rule of speech-preparation: analyse your audience'.

If you wonder where that came from, I have to confess that that I was immodest enough to have taken it from my own books Lend Me Your Ears (pp. 280-286) and Speech-making and Presentation Made Easy (pp. 34-37).

First inaugural designed for the media?
Impressive though the rhetoric and imagery may have been, what really made the speech memorable was that it was the first inaugural address by a US president to follow the first rule of speech-preparation: analyse your audience - or, to be more precise at a time when mass access to television was in its infancy, analyse your audiences.

In the most famous fictional speech of all time, Mark Antony had shown sensitivity to his different audiences in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar by asking his "Friends, Romans, countrymen" to lend him their ears. But Kennedy had many more audiences in mind than those who happened to be in Washington that day.

His countrymen certainly weren't left out, appearing as they did in the opening and towards the end with his most famous contrast of all: "Ask not..." But he knew, perhaps better than any previous US president, that local Americans were no longer the only audience that mattered. The age of a truly global mass media had dawned, which meant that what he said would be seen, heard or reported everywhere in the world.

At the height of the Cold War, Kennedy also had a foreign policy agenda that he wanted to be heard everywhere in the world. So the different segments of the speech were specifically targeted at a series of different audiences:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill"
"To those new nations whom we welcome to the ranks of the free"
"To those in the huts and villages of half the globe"
"To our sister republics south of the border"
"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations"
"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary"

The following day, there was nothing on the front pages of two leading US newspapers, The New York Times and the Washington Post to suggest that the countrymen in his audience had been particularly impressed by the speech - neither of them referred to any of the lines above that have become so famous.

The fact that so much of the speech is still remembered around the world 50 years later is a measure of Kennedy's success in knowing exactly what he wanted to say,
how best to say it and, perhaps most important of all, to whom he should say it.

More on JFK's target audiences
In fact, Kennedy aimed his speech at twice as many audiences as those mentioned in the above extract from the BBC website. You can listen to edited clips in the video at the top of the page and follow them in the transcript below:

VIPs on the platform & US citizens
Vice-president Johnson, Mr Speaker, Mr Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice-president Nixon, President Truman, Reverend clergy, fellow citkzens…

Everyone in the world
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans…

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill …

Allies
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share…

Emerging nations
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free…

Third world
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery…

Latin America
To our sister republics south of our border…

North & South America
Let all our neighbors know…

United Nations
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations…

Communist countries
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary…

US citizens
And so, my fellow Americans…

Citizens outside the USA
My fellow citizens of the world…

US + Non-US citizens of the world
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world…

Postscript: Kennedy's fashion legacy
Apart from putting much effort into what he wanted to say to whom, JFK also put quite a bit of thought into what the inaugural would look like in the global media. Jackie Kennedy's white coat was deliberately selected to ensure that she would stand out on a platform mainly populated by men in dark clothes.

And, the heavy snow in Washington the day before didn't prevent him from appearing without an overcoat or a hat. The former was made possible by his decision to wear thermal underwear - which presumably kept him warm enough not to bother wearing a hat.

This may have been all very well for him, but his hat-free head marked kicked off a new era for men in the Western world, in which routine hat wearing went out of fashion - look at any picture of a football crowd before 1961, and you'll see that the men all wore hats or caps. As a result, half the population has been condemned to being colder in winter than we'd have been without Kennedy's fashion legacy.

So, however much I may admire his rhetoric, I am definitely not an admirer of his lack of headwear.

Related posts