第3章 Speaking Effectively the Quick and Easy Way 简单而有效的演讲方法

I SELDOM WATCH television in the daytime. But a friend recently asked me to listen to an afternoon show that was directed primarily to housewives. It enjoyed a very high rating, and my friend wanted me to listen because he thought the audience participation part of the show would interest me. It certainly did. I watched it several times, fascinated by the way the master of ceremonies succeeded in getting people in the audience to make talks in a way that caught and held my attention. These people were obviously not professional speakers. They had never been trained in the art of communication. Some of them used poor grammar and mispronounced words. But all of them were interesting. When they started to talk they seemed to lose all fear of being on camera and they held the attention of the audience.

Why was this? I know the answer because I have been employing the techniques used in this program for many years. These people, plain, ordinary men and women, were holding the attention of viewers all over the country; they were talking about themselves, about their most embarrassing moments, their most pleasant memory, or how they met their wives or husbands. They were not thinking of introduction, body, and conclusion. They were not concerned with their diction or their sentence structure. Yet they were getting the final seal of approval from the audience—complete attention in what they had to say. This is dramatic proof of what to me is the first of three cardinal rules for a quick and easy way to learn to speak in public:

FIRST / SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO TAlK ABOUT THROUGH EXPERIENCE OR STUDY

The men and women whose live flesh-and-blood stories made that television program interesting were talking from their own personal experience. They were talking about something they knew. Consider what a dull program would have resulted if they had been asked to define communism or to describe the organizational structure of the United Nations. Yet that is precisely the mistake that countless speakers make at countless meetings and banquets. They decide they must talk about subjects of which they have little or no personal knowledge and to which they have devoted little or no attention. They pick a subject like Patriotism, or Democracy, or Justice, and then, after a few hours of frantic searching through a book of quotations or a speaker's handbook for all occasions, they hurriedly throw together some generalizations vaguely remembered from a political science course they once took in college, and proceed to give a talk distinguished for nothing other than its length. It never occurs to these speakers that the audience might be interested in factual material bringing these high-flown concepts down to earth.

At an area meeting of Dale Carnegie instructors in the Conrad Hilton Hotel in Chicago some years ago, a student speaker started like this: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. These are the mightiest ideas in the dictionary of mankind. Without liberty, life is not worth living. Imagine what existence would be like if your freedom of action would be restricted on all sides.”

That is as far as he got, because he was wisely stopped by the instructor, who then asked him why he believed what he was saying. He was asked whether he had any proof or personal experience to back up what he had just told us. Then he gave us an amazing story.

He had been a French underground fighter. He told us of the indignities he and his family suffered under Nazi rule. He described in vivid language how he escaped from the secret police and how he finally made his way to America. He ended by saying: “When I walked down Michigan Avenue to this hotel today, I was free to come or go, as I wished. I passed a policeman and he took no notice of me. I walked into this hotel without having to present an identification card, and when this meeting is over I can go anywhere in Chicago I choose to go. Believe me, freedom is worth fighting for.” He received a standing ovation from that audience.

TELL US WHAT LIFE HAS TAUGHT YOU

Speakers who talk about what life has taught them never fail to keep the attention of their listeners. I know from experience that speakers are not easily persuaded to accept this point of view—they avoid using personal experiences as too trivial and too restrictive. They would rather soar into the realms of general ideas and philosophical principles, where unfortunately the air is too rarefied for ordinary mortals to breathe. They give us editorials when we are hungry for the news. None of us is averse to listening to editorials, when they are given by a man who has earned the right to editorialize—an editor or publisher of a newspaper. The point, though, is this: Speak on what life has taught you and I will be your devoted listener.

It was said of Emerson that he was always willing to listen to any man, no matter how humble his station, because he felt he could learn something from every man he met. I have listened to more adult talks, perhaps, than any other man west of the Iron Curtain, and I can truthfully say that I have never heard a boring talk when the speaker related what life had taught him, no matter how slight or trivial the lesson may have been.

To illustrate: Some years ago, one of our instructors conducted a course in public speaking for the senior officers of New York City banks. Naturally, the members of such a group, having many demands upon their time, frequently found it difficult to prepare adequately, or to do what they conceived of as preparing. All their lives they had been thinking their own individual thoughts, nurturing their own personal convictions, seeing things from their own distinctive angles, living their own original experiences. They had spent forty years storing up material for talks. But it was hard for some of them to realize that.

One Friday a certain gentleman connected with an uptown bank—for our purposes we shall designate him as Mr. Jackson—found four-thirty had arrived, and what was he to talk about? He walked out of his office, bought a copy of Forbes' Magazine at a newsstand, and in the subway coming down to the Federal Reserve Bank where the class met, he read an article entitled, “You Have Only Ten Years to Succeed.” He read it, not because he was interested in the article especially, but because he had to speak on something to fill his quota of time.

An hour later, he stood up and attempted to talk convincingly and interestingly on the contents of this article.

What was the result, the inevitable result?

He had not digested, had not assimilated what he was trying to say. “Trying to say”—that expresses it precisely. He was trying. There was no real message in him seeking for an outlet; and his whole manner and tone revealed it unmistakably. How could he expect the audience to be any more impressed than he himself was? He kept referring to the article, saying the author said so and so. There was a surfeit of Forbes' Magazine in it, but regrettably little of Mr. Jackson.

After he finished his talk, the iustructor said, “Mr. Jackson, we are not interested in this shadowy personality who wrote that article. He is not here. We can't see him. But we are interested in you and your ideas. Tell us what you think, personally, not what somebody else said. Put more of Mr. Jackson in this. Would you take this same subject next week? Read this article again, and ask yourself whether you agree with the author or not. If you do, illustrate the points of agreement with observatious from your own experience. If you don't agree with him, tell us why. Let this article be the starting point from which to launch your own talk.”

Mr. Jackson reread the article and concluded that he did not agree with the author at all. He searched his memory for examples to prove his points of disagreement. He developed and expanded his ideas with details from his own experience as a bank executive. He came back the next week and gave a talk that was full of his own convictions, based on his own background. Instead of a warmed-over magazine article, he gave us ore from his own mine, currency coined in his own mint. I leave it to you to decide which talk made a stronger impact on the class.

LOOK FOR TOPICS IN YOUR BACKGROUND

Once a group of our instructors were asked to write on a slip of paper what they considered was the biggest problem they had with beginning speakers. When the slips were tallied, it was found that “getting beginners to talk on the right topic” was the problem most frequently encountered in early sessions of my course.

What is the right topic? You can be sure you have the right topic for you if you have lived with it, made it your own through experience and reflection. How do you find topics? By dipping into your memory and searching your background for those significant aspects of your life that made a vivid impression on you. Several years ago, we made a survey of topics that held the attention of listeners in our classes. We found that the topics most approved by the audience were concerned with certain fairly defined areas of one's background:

Early Years and Upbringing. Topics that deal with the family, childhood memories, schooldays, invariably get attention, because most of us are interested in the way other people met and overcame obstacles in the environment in which they were reared.

Whenever possible, work into your talks illustrations and examples from your early years. The popularity of plays, movies, and stories that deal with the subject of meeting the challenges of the world in one's early years attests to the value of this area for subject matter of talks. But how can you be sure anyone will be interested in what happened to you when you were young? There's one test. If something stands out vividly in your memory after many years have gone by, that almost guarantees that it will be of interest to an andience.

Early Struggles to Get Ahead. This is an area rich in human interest. Here again the attention of a group can be held by recounting your first attempts to make your mark on the world. How did you get into a particular job or profession? What twist of circumstances accounted for your career? Tell us about your setbacks, your hopes, your triumphs when you were establishing yourself in the competitive world. A real-life picture of almost anyone's life—if told modestly—is almost surefire material.

Hobbies and Recreation. Topics in this area are based on personal choice and, as such, are subjects that command attention. You can't go wrong talking about something you do out of sheer enjoyment. Your natural enthusiasm for your particular hobby will help get this topic across to any audience.

Special Areas of Knowledge. Many years of working in the same field have made you an expert in your line of endeavor. You can be certain of respectful attention if you discuss aspects of your job or profession based on years of experience or study.

Unusual Experiences. Have you ever met a great man? Were you under fire during the war? Have you gone through a spiritual crisis in your life? These are experiences that make the best kind of speech material.

Beliefs and Convictions. Perhaps you have given a great deal of time and effort to thinking about your position on vital subjects confronting the world today. If you have devoted many hours to the study of issues of importance, you have earned the right to talk about them. But when you do, be Certain that you give specific instances for your convictions. Audiences do not relish a talk filled with generalizations. Please don't consider the casual reading of a few newspaper articles sufficient preparation to talk on these topics. If you know little more about a subject than the people in your audience, it is best to avoid it. On the other hand, if you have devoted years of study to some subject, it is undoubtedly a topic that is made to order for you. By all means, use it.

As was pointed out in Chapter Two, the preparation of a talk does not consist merely in getting some mechanical words down on paper, or in memorizing a series of phrases. It does not consist in lifting ideas secondhand from some hastily read book or newspaper article. But it does consist in digging deep into your mind and heart and bringing forth some of the essential convictions that life has stored there. Never doubt that the material is there. It is! Rich stores of it, waiting for you to discover it. Do not spurn such material as too personal, too slight for an audience to hear, I have been highly entertained and deeply moved by such talks, more entertained and more moved than I have been by many professional speakers.

Only by talking about something you have earned the right to talk about will you be able to fulfill the second requirement for learning to speak in public quickly and easily. Here it is:

SECOND / BE SURE YOU ARE EXCITED ABOUT YOUR SUBJECT

Not all topics that you and I have earned the right to talk about make us excited. For instance, as a do-it-yourself devotee, I certainly am qualified to talk about washing dishes. But somehow or other I can't get excited about this topic. As a matter of fact, I would rather forget about it altogether. Yet I have heard housewives—household executives, that is—give superb talks about this same subject. They have somehow aroused within themselves such a fury of indignation about the eternal task of washing dishes, or they have developed such ingenious methods of getting around this disagreeable chore, that they have become really excited about it. As a consequence, they have been able to talk effectively about this subject of washing dishes.

Here is a question that will help yon determine the suitability of topics you feel qualified to discuss in public: if someone stood up and directly opposed your point of view, would you be impelled to speak with conviction and earnestness in defense of your position? If you would, you have the right subject for you.

Recently, I came across some notes I had written in 1926 after I had visited the Seventh Session of the League of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Here is a paragraph:“After three or four. lifeless speakers read their manuscripts, Sir George Foster of Canada took the floor. With immense satisfaction I noted that he had no papers of notes of any kind. He gestured almost constantly. His heart was in what he was saying. He had something he very much wanted to get across. The fact that he was earnestly trying to convey to the audience certain convictions that he cherished in his own heart was as plain as Lake Geneva outside the windows. Principles I have been advocating in my teaching were beautifully illustrated in that talk.”

I often recall that speech by Sir George. He was sincere; he was earnest. Only by choosing topics which are felt by the heart as well as thought out by the mind will this sincerity be made manifest. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, one of America's most dynamic speakers, learned this lesson early in life.

“I was chosen for the debating team in college,” he wrote in his book, Life Is Worth Living, “and the night before the Notre Dame debate, our professor of debating called me to his office and scolded me.”

“‘You are absolutely rotten. We have never had anybody in the history of this college who was a worse speaker than yourself.’

“‘Well, ' I saki, trying to justify myself, ‘ if I am so rotten why did you pick me for the team? ’

“‘Because, ' he answered, ‘you can think; not because you can talk. Get over in that corner. Take a paragraph of your speech and go through it.' I repeated a paragraph over and over again for an hour, at the end of which he said, ‘Do you see any mistake in that? ’‘No.' Again an hour and a half, two hours, two and a half hours, at the end of which I was exhausted. He said, ‘Do you still not see what is wrong? ’

“Being naturally quick, after two hours and a half, I caught on. I said, ‘ Yes. I am not sincere. I am not myself. I do not talk as if I meant it.’”

At this point, Bishop Sheen learned a lesson he always remembered: he put himself into his talk. He became excited about his subject matter. Only then the wise professor said,“Now, you are ready to speak!”

When a member of one of our classes says, “I don't get excited about anything, I lead a humdrum sort of life,” our instructors are trained to ask him what he does in his spare time. One goes to the movies, another bowls, and another cultivates roses. One man told his instructor that he collected books of matches. As the instructor continued to question him about this unusual hobby, he gradually became animated. Soon he was using gestures as he described the cabinets in which he stored his collection. He told his instructor that he had match books from almost every country in the world. When he became excited about his favorite topic, the instructor stopped him: “Why don't you tell us about this subject? It sounds fascinating to me.” He said that he didn't think anyone would be interested! Here was a man who had spent years in pursuit of a hobby that was almost a passion with him; yet he was negative about its value as a topic to speak about. This instructor assured this man that the only way to gauge the interest value of a subject was to ask yourself how interested you are in it. He talked that night with all the fervor of the true collector, and I heard later that he gained a certain amount of local recognition by going to various luncheon clubs and talking about match book collecting.

This illustration leads directly to the third guiding principle for those, who want a quick and easy way to learn to speak in public.

THIRD / BE EAGER TO SHARE YOUR TALK WITH YOUR LISTENERS

There are three factots in every speaking situation: the speaker, the speech or the message, and the audience. The first two rules in this chapter dealt with the interrelationships of the speaker to a speech. Up to this point there is no speaking situation. Only when the speaker relates his talk to a living audience will the speaking situation come to life. The talk may be well prepared; it may concern a topic which the speaker is excited about; but for complete success, another factor must enter into his delivery of the talk. He must make his listeners feel that what he has to say is important to them. He must not only be excited about his topic, but he must be eager to transfer this excitement to his listeners. In every public speaker of note in the history of eloquence, there has been this unmistakable quality of salesmanship, evangelism, call it what you will. The effective speaker earnestly desires his listeners to feel what he feels, to agree with his point of view, to do what he thinks is right for them to do, and to enjoy and relive his experience with him. He is audience-centered and not self-centered. He knows that the success or failure of his talk is not for him to decide—it will be decided in the minds and hearts of his heaters.

I trained a number of men in the New York City Chapter of the American Institute of Banking to speak during a thrift campaign. One of the men in particular wasn't getting across to his audience. The first step in helping that man was to fire up his mind and heart with zeal for his subject. I told him to go off by himself and to think over this subject until he became eathusiastic about it. I asked him to remember that the Probate Court Records in New York show that more than 85 per cent of the people leave nothing at all at death; that only 3.3 per cent leave $10,000 or over. He was to keep constantly in mind that he was not asking people to do him a favor or something that they could not afford to do. He was to say to himself: “I am preparing these people to have meat and bread and clothes and comfort in their old age, and to leave their wives and children secure.” He had to remember he was going out to perform a great social service. In short, he had to be a crusader.

He thought over these facts. He burned them into his mind. He aroused his own interest, stirred his own enthusiasm, and came to feel that he, indeed, had a mission. Then, when he went out to talk, there was a ring to his words that carried conviction. He sold his listeners on the benefits of thrift because he had an eager desire to help people. He was no longer just a speaker armed with facts; he was a missionary seeking converts to a worthwhile cause.

At one time in my teaching career I relied considerably on the textbook rules of public speaking. In doing this I was merely reflecting some of the bad habits that had been instilled into me by teachers who had not broken away from the stilted mechanics of elocution.

I shall never forget my first lesson in speaking. I was taught to let my arm hang loosely at my side, with the palm turned to the rear, fingers half-closed and thumb touching my leg. I was drilled to bring the arm up in a picturesque curve, to give the wrist a classical turn, and then to unfold the forefinger first, the second finger next, and the little finger last. When the whole aesthetic and ornamental movement had been executed, the arm was to retrace the course of the curve and rest again by the side of the leg. The whole performance was wooden and affected. There was nothing sensible or honest about it.

My instructor made no attempt to get me to put my own individuality into my speaking; no attempt to have me speak like a normal, living human being conversing in an energetic manner with my audience.

Contrast this mechanistic approach to speech training with the three primary rules I have been discussing in this chapter. They are the basis of my entire approach to training in effective speaking. You will come across them again and again in this book. In the next three chapters each of these rules will be explained in detail.

我平时很少看电视，但最近有一位朋友建议我看看下午的某个电视节目，这个节目是专门针对家庭主妇的，收视率很高。这位朋友之所以让我收看，是因为他认为该节目中的观众参与可能会引起我的兴趣。的确如此，我看了几次，很欣赏那位主持人请观众参与谈话的方式，而观众的说话方式也引起了我的注意：这些人显然都不是职业演讲家，而且也没有受过什么沟通艺术方面的训练，甚至语法很差，还说错字。可是他们全都说得十分有趣，他们说话时似乎全没有那种上镜头的恐惧，还能吸引观众的注意力。

这是为什么呢？我找到了答案，因为我后来长期在训练中采用这种方法。这些普普通通的男人和女人，抓住了全国电视观众的注意力，他们谈的是自己：自己最困难的时刻，自己最美好的回忆，或是最初与自己的妻子或丈夫约会等等。他们根本就没有想到什么绪论、正文和结论，也不在乎遣词造句，然而他们却获得了观众的赏识，他们完全倾注于他们所要说的事情。我认为，这正是当众讲话三个简单而有效的法则。

一、讲述自己的亲身经历或知识

那些男男女女自己活生生的故事，使那个电视节目变得生动有趣，他们谈的全都是自己的亲身经历和自己精通的知识。如果他们被要求解释共产主义或描述美国的组织结构，想象一下这个节目会有多么单调乏味！但这正是无数演讲者在许多聚会中常犯的主要错误。他们认为必须讲一些自己毫无个人经历或个人兴趣与关注的东西。他们会随便拿起一个如爱国主义、民主或公正的题目，然后花上几小时无头绪地搜索什么格言集或各种场合的演讲者手册，又将他们曾在大学上的政治课中记住的一些模糊不清的通俗性概念拼凑在一起，然后上台发表一次毫无意义的冗长演讲。这些演讲者不知道，听众可能对产生这些高扬在上的概念的真实故事更感兴趣。

几年前，卡耐基成人教育班的教师们在芝加哥的康拉德·希尔顿大饭店聚会。一位学员是这样开场的：“自由、平等、博爱，这些都是人类词典中最伟大的思想。没有自由，生命就没有存在的价值。设想一下，如果我们的行动处处受到限制，将是一种什么样的生存状况？”

他讲到这儿的时候，指导教师立即请他停止，问他是否有什么证据或亲身经历可以支持他刚才所说的观点。于是，他讲了一个动人心弦的故事。

他曾是一名法国的地下革命者，他讲了他和家人在纳粹统治下受尽屈辱。他以生动形象的语言，描述了自己是如何躲过秘密警察的追捕逃到美国的。最后他说：“今天，当我从密歇根街来到这家饭店时，可以自由地来去。我经过一位警察身边时，他也并不注意我。我可以不用出入卡就可以走进饭店。会议结束之后，我可以按自己的意愿去芝加哥的任何地方。因此，请相信，自由是值得奋斗的。”他刚一说完，就获得了全场起立欢呼。

1.阐释生命对自己的启示

演讲者阐释生命的启示，绝不会没有人愿意听。但是经验也告诉我，这个观点很不容易让人接受——因为人们会极力避开个人经历，认为这些事情太琐碎、太局限。他们宁愿说一些一般概念或者哲理，可惜这些更让平凡的我们无法接受。这好比我们渴望新闻，可是他们却给我们社论。我们并不反对听社论，但是这应该由那些有资格的人来说，例如报纸编辑或发行者。因此，还是谈谈生命对你的启示吧，我将会成为你的忠实听众。

据说爱默生总是喜欢听人谈话，而不论其地位多么卑微，因为他觉得自己可以从任何人身上学到一些东西。我听过的成人谈话，或许比任何人都多。说实话，一个演讲者叙述生命给他的启示时，不论他说的多么琐碎、多么微不足道，我从不会觉得厌烦。

例如，几年前，我们的一位教师替纽约市一些资深的银行官员开了一门当众讲话的课程。当然，这些人的事情多得不能分身，常常感到要做好充分准备或他们心目中认为的准备很难。其实，他们一直都在思考自己的问题，有个人的信念，会从自身的角度看问题，而且积累了原始的经验。他们已经积累了40年的谈话资料，但他们有些人却不知道这一点。

在某个星期五，一位来自上区银行的先生来到训练班——因为某种原因，我们姑且叫他杰克逊先生——有45个人参加了这次训练。他准备讲什么呢？他离开办公室时，在报摊上买了一份《福布斯杂志》。在前往联邦储备银行上课所在地的地铁上，他看了杂志中的一篇文章《十年成功秘诀》。他读它并不是因为对它特别感兴趣，而是想找点谈资，以便上课时有内容可讲。

一小时后，他离开地铁，准备把这篇文章讲得妙趣横生。

可是结果呢？不可避免的结果是什么样的？

他并没有把阅读的东西消化，也没有吸收到自己想要说的东西。“想要说”这个词形容得很准确，因为他只是“想要”。他并没有想挖掘一些有深度的内容来谈，他的整个仪态和音调明显地透露了这一点。他怎么能期望听众比他自己更受感动呢？他不断地提到那篇文章，说那位作者如何如何。他的演讲里，我们了解了《福布斯杂志》很多，遗憾的是对杰克逊先生自己的东西却了解太少。

他演讲完后，指导老师说：“杰克逊先生，我们对你讲的那位作者并不感兴趣，他不在这里，我们也看不到他。我们倒是对你和你的观点感兴趣。不妨告诉我们你是怎么想的，不要谈别人怎么讲。把更多的有关你自己的事情放在演讲里，下星期再用同样的题目演讲好吗？请把那篇文章再读一遍，问问你自己是否同意那位作者的论点。如果同意，就以你自己的经验来论证。如果不同意，告诉我们为什么。就让这篇文章作为一个引子，引出你自己的演讲。”

杰克逊先生重读了那篇文章，发现自己根本不同意作者的观点。他从记忆里搜寻事例来反驳，并以自己担任银行主管的经验详尽阐述论证自己的观点。因此，他的第二次演讲不再是翻抄杂志文章的内容，而是充满了根据他自身背景所得的理念，他给我们的是他自己矿场里的矿石，是他自己铸币厂里铸造的钱币。你想这两场演讲哪一场更能给班上学员强烈的印象？

2.根据自己的经历寻找题目

有一次，有人请教我们的指导教师，初学演讲者所遇到的最大问题是什么？据统计发现，“教初学者根据适合的题目演讲”是初学演讲者最常碰到的问题。

什么才是适合的题目呢？假使你的生活中经历过它，或者是你经过思考使它属于你的，你就可以肯定这个题目适合你。那又该如何找题目呢？不妨翻开自己的记忆，从自己的生活背景中去搜寻生命中那些有意义，并且给你留下深刻印象的事情。几年前，我们曾在班上就能够吸引听众注意的题目做了一次调查，发现最受听众欣赏的题目都与某些特定的个人背景有关：

早年与成长的历程：与家庭、童年回忆、学校生活有关的题目，一定会引起人们的注意，因为别人在成长过程中如何应对艰难的经历，最能引起我们的兴趣。

不论何时，只要有可能，都应该把自己早年的故事融进演讲中。许多脍炙人口的戏剧、电影和故事讲的都是人们早年遇到的挑战，这就足以证明关于成长历程的题材是很有价值的，当然也适用于演讲。但是如何验证别人会对你小时候经历的事感兴趣呢？有个很简单的方法：多年以后，只要某件事情依旧鲜明地印在你的脑海中，随时都可能呼之欲出，那几乎可以保证听众会感兴趣。

早年出人头地的奋斗：这是充满了人情味的经历。例如，回忆自己早期为追求成功所做的努力，一定能吸引听众。你是如何从事某种特别的工作或行业的？是什么机遇造就了你的事业？告诉人们，你在这竞争激烈的世界创业时所遭遇的挫折、你的希望以及你的成功。如果谦虚地描述一些个人的真实生活，几乎是最保险的题材。

爱好及娱乐：这方面的题目可以根据个人的不同来定，因此，也是能引起听众注意的题材。讲一件完全是个人喜欢的事，一般不会出现失误。你对某一项特殊的爱好发自内心的热诚，有助于你把这个题目讲得生动有趣。

特殊领域的知识：如果你多年在同一个领域里工作，会使你成为这个领域的专家。如果你能用多年的经验或研究来讲述自己的工作或职业方面的事情，也会引起听众的注意与尊敬。

不同寻常的经历：你有没有见过名人？你有没有经历过战争？你有没有经历过精神上的危机？这些经历都可以成为最佳的演讲材料。

信仰与信念：你或许花了许多时间和精力去思考自己应该对当今世界所面临的重大问题持何种态度。那么，你当然有资格谈论它们。不过，在这样做的时候，你一定要举例子来说明你的论点，因为听众并不爱听空泛的演讲。千万不要以为随意读些报纸文章，就可以谈论这些题目。如果你自己所知的不比听众的多，还是避而不谈为妙。反过来说，既然你曾经投入了多年的时间研究某个问题，这显然是你该说的题目，因此你绝对要用它。

前面我已经指出，准备演讲并不只包括在纸上写些字，或者背诵一连串的字句，也不是从匆忙读过的书或报纸文章中抽取别人第二手的观点。而是要在你自己的脑海及心灵深处挖掘，并将贮藏在那儿的信念随时提取出来。不必怀疑那里有没有材料！那里当然有，而且贮藏丰富，正等待你去发掘。也不要以为这样的题材太个人化、太轻微，听众可能不会喜欢听。其实，正是这样的演讲才让我感到快乐和深受感动，甚至比我听过的那些职业演讲家的演讲更让我快乐，更让我感动。

只有讲那些你有资格谈论的事情，才能会使你达到学习快速有效地当众讲话的第二个要求。下面就是这一要求：

二、对演讲的题目充满热情

并不是你我有资格谈论的话题就一定会让我们充满热情。例如，我是一个天天干家务的忠实丈夫，我确实有资格谈谈关于洗盘子的事。可是我对此并没有热情，事实上我根本不愿想它，你想我能把这个题目讲好吗？但是，我却听过家庭主妇们把这个题目说得精彩极了。她们内心当中或许对永远洗不完的盘子有一股怒火，或许发现了一种新方法可以处理这恼人的工作——不管怎样，她们对这个题材更喜欢，所以她们可以对这个题目说得津津有味。

这里有个问题，可以帮你确认某个题目是否适合你演讲：如果有人站起来直接反对你的观点，你是否有百分之百的信心为自己激烈地辩护？如果有的话，这题目一定适合你。

我1926年曾去瑞士的日内瓦参观国际联盟第七次大会，后来对当时的情形做了笔记。最近我无意间翻看了这些笔记。以下是其中一段：“在三四个死气沉沉的演讲者念完手稿之后，加拿大的乔治·佛斯特爵士上台发言。他没有带任何纸张或字条，我不禁大为欣赏。他对他要讲的事情非常专注，常常通过手势来强调他的观点。他很想让自己的思想被听众了解，热切地把那些珍贵的理念传达给听众。这种情形十分清楚，犹如窗外澄明的日内瓦湖。我一直在教学上倡导的那些法则，在他的演讲中展现得完美无缺。”

我常常想起乔治爵士的演讲。他真诚而热心。因此，只有对演讲的题目有真实感受，才会有如此的感情显露。富尔顿·辛主教是美国最具震撼力的演讲家之一，他从早年的生活中也学到了这一课。

他在《不虚此生》一书中写道：“我被选出来参加学院的辩论队。在一次辩论的前一晚，我们的辩论教授把我喊到办公室，责骂了我一顿。

“‘你真是饭桶！本院有史以来还没有一个演讲者比你更差的！’

“‘那，’我说，我想替自己辩解，‘既然我是一个大饭桶，为什么还挑我参加辩论队？’

“‘因为你会思考，而不是你会讲。’他回答道，‘到那边去，从演讲词中抽出一段，把它讲出来。’我把这段话反反复复地讲了一个钟头，然后他说：‘你看出其中的错误了吧？'‘没有。’于是接下来又是两个半钟头。最后我筋疲力尽。他说：‘你还看不出错在哪里吗？’

“过了两个半钟头，我终于找到了问题的关键。我说：‘看出来了，我没有诚意。我心不在焉，没有真实的情意。’”

就这样，辛主教学到了他永生难忘的一课：把自己沉浸在演讲中。他开始让自己对演讲的题材产生热情。直到这时，博学的教授才说：“现在你可以讲了！”

如果我班上有学员说“我对什么事都不感兴趣，我过的是平凡单调的生活”，我们的指导老师便会问他闲暇时都做些什么。有人说看电影，有人说打保龄球，有人则说种玫瑰花。有一位学员告诉指导老师，他收集有关火柴的书籍。于是，老师继续问他这个不寻常的嗜好，他渐渐来了精神。不一会儿，他便兴致勃勃地描述起自己收藏火柴书的小书柜来。他告诉老师，他几乎收藏了世界各国关于火柴的书。等他对自己最喜爱的话题产生兴趣之后，指导老师打断他：“为什么不谈谈这个话题呢？我觉得挺有意思的。”他说他从来没想到会有人感兴趣！这个人几乎耗尽了一生的心血，对自己这一嗜好充满了感情，几乎成了一种狂热，而他却否定它的价值，认为它不值一谈。指导老师告诉他，要想知道一个话题有没有趣味和价值，最好的方法就是问自己对它有多感兴趣。后来，他以收藏家的姿态兴高采烈地畅谈了一个晚上。后来我又听说他去参加各种午餐俱乐部，向人们演讲有关火柴书籍收藏的话题，因此得到了地方人士的推崇。

如果你希望迅速而轻易地学会当众讲话，那么这个例子正好可以引出第三条法则。

三、激发听众的共鸣

演讲由三种因素构成：演讲者、演讲内容和听众。本章的前两条法则讨论了演讲者和演讲内容之间的相互关系，但仅止于此，还不是真正的演讲。只有当演讲者把自己的演讲与听众发生联系以后，演讲才真正完成。演讲也许准备周详、演讲者也许对自己的话题充满热情，然而要真正演讲成功，却还有另一个因素必须考虑：演讲者必须使听众觉得他所说的对他们很重要。他不仅要自己对这个话题富有热情，还必须把这种热情传达给听众。历史上那些著名的雄辩家都具有这样的王婆卖瓜的本领，或者是传播福音之术。高明的演讲者总是热切地希望听众感受到他的感受，同意他的观点，并做他认为该做的事，与他一同分享他的快乐，一同分担他的忧愁。他会以听众为中心，而不是以自我为中心。他明白自己演讲的成败不是由他来决定，而是由听众的头脑和心灵来决定。

在推行节俭运动期间，我到美国银行学会纽约分会培训了一批人。其中有一个人无法和听众沟通。要帮助他，首先要让他对自己的题目燃起热情之火。我告诉他，先一个人静静地待在一边，把自己的题目反复想几遍，直到对它产生热情。我要让他记住这样一个事实：纽约遗嘱公证法庭记录显示，85%的人去世时没有留下分文，只有3.3%的人留下1万美元或更多的财产。我还让他明白，他现在不是去求别人施舍，或者要求别人做根本无法做到的事。他应该这样对自己说：“我是在替这些人着想，要使他们老了以后衣食无忧，过上舒适安逸的生活，并且给妻儿留下安全的保障。”我还让他相信，他是在做一项了不起的社会服务工作。总之，他必须把自己当作一名斗士。

他考虑了这些事实，终于使自己热血沸腾，激发出兴趣和热情，并开始觉得自己的确是身担重任。于是，他外出演讲时，那满载信念的语言感染了人们。他将节俭的利益告诉大家，因为他热切地想帮助他们。他不再是个只知道陈述事实的演讲者，他已经成了一名为理想事业而改变信仰的传教士。

在我的教学生涯中，曾经非常依赖教科书中的教条。我只是照搬我的老师们长年灌输给我的一些坏习惯，而他们也没能从虚浮的演讲风气中有所突破。

我永远都忘不了我的第一次演讲课：老师让我将双臂轻轻地垂放在身体两侧，手掌朝后，所有手指都蜷曲一半，大拇指轻触大腿。然后，举起手臂，画出优美的弧线，以便让手腕优雅地转动。接着张开食指，然后是中指，最后是小指。当这一整套合乎美学的、装饰性的动作完成之后，手臂还必须回溯刚才的那道弧线，再放于双腿两侧。这整套表演显得虚假而做作，既没有意义，也不真实。

我的老师并未教我将个性融于演讲之中，也不让我像平常人那样富有朝气地与听众谈天说地。

请把这种机械的演讲训练方式与我在这一章所介绍的三项主要原则互相对比一下。这三项原则是我“高效演讲训练”全套方法的根本。你将会在本书中一再看到它们。在下面三章中，将逐条详细解释这些法则。