William Safire (1929–2009)

I intend this review to be as brief as possible, exhausted as I am by reading this lengthy tome. Described by its compiler William Safire, himself a distinguished speechwriter, as "a doorstop-sized reference [book] for students of history and politics" (pg. 23), this is no exaggeration. In its 2004 edition, Lend Me Your Ears is comparable in length to some editions of Tolstoy's War and Peace. Never mind its utility in stopping a door; I imagine if thrown accurately this book could stop a show more rhino. However, whilst it is no doubt a daunting read it is also a rewarding one, for as Safire intimates on page 36, its physical weight is matched only by its intellectual weight.

Safire does his best to navigate the reader through his book, and introduces each speech with concise introductions which are invaluable in placing the orations in their correct historical context. Safire also demonstrates how speeches are structured, and why certain techniques are effective. Rather than just providing a mere depository of rhetoric, the anthologist encourages the reader to understand speechwriting as a craft, and his own background as a speechwriter lends weight to his words. He includes one or two of his own speeches (ghost-written for politicians, and one in his own voice) but this is not done out of vanity; they are worthy additions.

As to the selections on offer, one must point out that any anthology of this sort is going to be subjective. Most of the well-known speeches from history are on offer (likely culprits like Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln are well-represented), and if you are using the book as a reference work you'll probably find what you're looking for. There are also some nice hidden gems present; I particularly liked William Lyon Phelps' eulogy on book ownership (pp611-12) and J. Proctor Knott's magnificently entertaining satirical speech (pp901-9). The final chapter focuses on undelivered speeches, which are fascinating to contemplate. Though only containing three speeches - the speech JFK was due to deliver in Dallas before his assassination, President Clinton's scrapped apology for the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Richard Nixon's contingency speech in case the 1969 Moon landings failed (the latter drafted by Safire himself) - this section is the most intriguing. I wish the same could be said of the sizeable chapter on religious sermons; only one or two of these are worthy of the space afforded (the Sermon on the Mount and Red Jacket's plea), and this section is a bit of a slog.

One of the main drawbacks for myself was the lack of any speeches from literature. With the exception of William Shakespeare's 'lend me your ears' speech from Julius Caesar, which of course inspired the book's title - and which Safire tries to appropriate as belonging to the original Mark Antony even though he acknowledges its dubious historicity (pg. 177) - there are no fictional speeches on offer here. The book is poorer not just for the omission of obvious recommendations like Shakespeare's 'band of brothers' speech from Henry V but also the likes of Charlie Chaplin's speech from The Great Dictator. On a purely historical note, I found myself disappointed by the absence of (from off the top of my head): Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's tribute to the 'Johnnies and Mehmets' at Gallipoli, Tim Collins' eve-of-battle speech from Iraq in 2003, Thomas Rainsborough's contribution to the Putney Debates and even, surprisingly, Nelson Mandela.

Whilst comprehensive, Lend Me Your Ears is by no means definitive. But I am mindful of the fact that one cannot credibly bemoan the book's length and yet criticise some omissions that if included would have made it even longer. Yes, some speeches could have been added, and some discarded, but there are no omissions or additions of such glaring error as to render the book worthless. Unless one is willing to invest time in an exhaustive (and exhausting) multi-volume anthology, Safire's book is likely to be as good a book as one can get on great historical speeches. show less

I am on the verge of editing a large book compiled from the writing of other people. I've had no compunction about fumbling through my own knowledge of grammar concerning my work, but feel a greater responsbility when handling the work of others. I turned to the master for guidance, and he did not disappoint. Safire's particular skill is to explain things just enough for the reader to understand, without belaboring any points unless he absolutely needs to. He is clear as well on what is show more flexible and what is not. No matter how many grammar books I read, however, I'll split infinitives all the live-long day. It just doesn't bother me. show less

An old collection of William Safire's New York Times columns on English words and their correct usage, most of which also feature short letters of feedback from his readers.

The question of what, exactly, constitutes "proper English" and who gets to define it can be a hugely contentious one. Personally, I believe that having and following rules (or having rules and breaking them judiciously) is a fairly important thing when it comes to communicating smoothly and effectively, and that people show more who wr1te liek, this!!! can't really be said to be behaving in a particularly civilized fashion. On the other hand, I have a vanishingly small amount of patience for people who try to impose arbitrary and ill-fitting rules on language, deride any usage they haven't known since childhood as barbarous, and get their kicks by wagging their fingers gleefully at their supposed linguistic inferiors. Safire makes an attempt to avoid being one of those second kind, but he does nevertheless tend to wander back and forth across the boundary of what I consider to be annoying prescriptivism. He's still interesting, though, and often entertaining to read, and I have come away from this thinking a little harder -- perhaps even a little too self-consciously -- about my own word choices.

Somewhat surprisingly, the fact that this was published in 1980 and consists of material written in the 70's actually makes it more worth reading rather than less. It was sort of fascinating to see what words and phrases he reports as being new and strange now seem perfectly ordinary and unremarkable, which have long since disappeared without trace, and which just feel old-fashioned. show less

Having never read historical fiction before I wasn't sure if I'd like it or not. Having read about the events of James Callender, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, however, helped me appreciate and enjoy the story.

In Scandalmonger, we get an up-close look at how Jefferson paid and encouraged Callender to investigate and humiliate not only his nemesis Hamilton but Washington, and Adams. Of course, others were using the press for the same purposes.