The Art of Conversation - Catherine Blyth [43]
E. M. Forster was on the money. “Only connect.” Topical connections are the joinery of relating.
➺ Rule two: Bid for a topic tactically
Throughout conversation we broker topics. Negotiations can be comically protracted.
“Does this red top go okay with my coloring?”
“Yes, dear.”
“You don’t think it’s too loud?”
“No, dear.”
“It doesn’t clash?”
“No.”
“It’s just the way my hair’s been acting lately . . .”
“You look fine.” (Sound of TV channel being switched.)
“I DYED IT GINGER LAST NIGHT. HAVEN’T YOU NOTICED?”
“No, dear.”
But bidding is simple. I offer a subject—“Hear about Fred and the banana split?” And you either agree—“No, what?”—or bid for another—“Yeah. But did you hear about Mary and the Hells Angel?”—or, if a you’re real schmo, offer nothing more—“Yeah.”
Nonetheless, how we bid alters conversation dynamics. The options are:
DIRECT BIDS
Statements: “I have to tell you about Fred, the biker, and the vanishing banana.”
Questions: “Heard about Fred’s Hells Angel?”
Previews: “Guess what Fred’s done now?”
INDIRECT BIDS
Oblique comments, statements, or observations: “Fred is in the custard.”
Your style of bid indicates whether you wish to lead discussion. Open bids—“They say Fred is brilliant” or “Heard about Fred?”—let the other person either react passively or take charge of developing the topic. Closed bids—“Tell me about Fred” or “Guess what Fred did”—leave no room for maneuver. So be wary of bidding as an expert—“Let me tell you about my ormolu clocks.”
In sensitive situations, indirect bids tactfully point out the door without forcing the other in. Say someone else mentioned John’s striptease at the harvest supper, you might ask the guilty man: “You partied out?” And if you can’t ask where Jean’s been, fish: “I would’ve invited you but there was no answer when I called.”
➺ Rule three: Exercise editorial rights in your reactions
Just the tone of an answer is illuminating, able to signal desire to spin in a given direction (green), support without furthering a topic (amber), or enough, already (red):
Green: Add new material to be developed (“Fred, eh? Fearless for his height.” )
Amber: Neutral, no extra topical reference, adding nothing (“Poor Fred.” )
Red: Yawn. (“Uh-huh.” )
Be aware of how your responses actively select topics by shining a light on what interests you. Think how to train it. For instance, I met a man, call him Jake, who boasted: “I have a weakness for fast Italian cars.” I said nothing. He elaborated:
“Laid my hands on a beaut of a Testarossa. Bright green. Can do up to 220 mph on a fast road. Dealer couldn’t sell them for horse meat at first, Ferrari discontinued the run, but now there’s hardly any, they’re worth a mint.”
Each extra tot of information was the seed of a new topic. Had I smiled and said, “Ferrari?” at “Testarossa,” this would have focused his mind on that marque as a subject to expand on. If I’d said, “Gosh, where can you drive that fast?” after “fast road,” that might have steered us away. Stupidly, I smiled, wasting a month’s ration of “Really?”s.
How you structure statements may engender or neuter talking points. Consider these reactions to “Silent movies are so evocative”:
“I don’t remember any. Maybe because I’m obsessed with words.”
“You’re right, they’re hypnotic. Maybe that’s why I find it easier to remember scenes from talkies. Or that could be because I’m obsessed with words.”
Same information, different message. The first says: “I have completely different opinions. Want to hear about me?” The second shows respect and supplies at least