NT Gateway Weblog

The question of how to present papers is a regular one here and it has recently resurfaced (More SBL Reflections, especially on Presenting Papers and SBL Assorted Reflections). Matthew Collins mentioned to me that Heather McKay and he presented a workshop on the topic at the annual meeting last year, headed "Giving a Better Presentation at the Meeting (a.k.a. Speed Readers Anonymous)". Apparently it runs each year at the International Meeting too. Matthew also sent me a copy of an excellent article on the subject, which is available for distribution provided one retains the copyright information at the top of the article:

How to Give an Academic Talk:
Changing the Culture of Public Speaking in the Humanities (PDF)
Paul N. Edwards
School of Information
University of Michigan

. . . . Why do otherwise brilliant people give such soporific talks?

First, they’re scared. The pattern is a perfectly understandable reaction to stage fright. It’s easier to hide behind the armor of a written paper, which you’ve had plenty of time to work through, than simply to talk.

But second, and much more important, it’s part of academic culture — especially in the humanities. It's embedded in our language: we say we're going to "give a paper." As a euphemism for a talk, this is an oxymoron. Presentations are not articles. They are a completely different medium of communication, and they require a different set of skills. Professors often fail to recognize this, or to teach it to their graduate students.

Stage fright is something everybody has to handle in their own way. But academic culture is something we can deliberately change. This short essay is an attempt to begin that process with some pointers for effective public speaking . . . .

I have provided that quotation by way of taster. I must admit to finding it very refreshing to see someone independently making the case I have been trying to make for the last three years; he does it with clarity and style. I see that the article appears in a variety of places on the net where other sympathisers have uploaded it, so I'd also like to thank Paul Edwards for making it available in this way, which demonstrates the power of the net to disseminate one's writing on topics of interest to a broad range of people.

Labels: presenting papers

---

Over on the Forbidden Gospels Blog, April DeConick weighs in with her SBL Odds and Ends. April's reflections are helpful and interesting, and I agree with many of them. Like her, "my experience of SBL is a communal one". On the perennial issue of reading papers, April makes the valuable point that predistributing papers can be problematic given that many in the audience will not have read the paper in question and suggests that "Predistributing only works if the group is very small - like a seminar - and the goal of the meeting is detailed discussion of the paper". This is the set up in the Mark Group, and I have had some good experiences there. Nevertheless, the group sometimes illustrates the problem that April discusses. Non-members of the group inevitably come along to the session, they will not have read the papers, and they are sat around the outside of the room as non-participants. On Evangelical Textual Criticism, Peter Head draws attention to the set up of the Mark Group this year. I can't help thinking that it is appropriate to a group studying Mark, with a group of "those around him with the twelve" and "those who are outside".

My feeling about presenting papers, though, is not so much about the benefits of predistributing over not predistributing. Rather it is a question of the style of delivery. If one is reading out a paper rather than presenting it, I think a great deal can get lost. People do not hear everything in a read-aloud paper. The question which I tend to ask is this: why do we not read aloud our lectures in class? The answer, presumably, is because we wish to communicate effectively with our students. Likewise at the conference, if we wish to communicate with our audience, it is preferable to present rather than to read. (I am assuming here that people do not read aloud undergraduate lectures, do they?). On this theme, in comments, James McGrath makes the interesting point that "I think I've become so used to papers, that the rare person who does a presentation makes me feel like they are 'teaching a class' and treating the audience like we are students!" Well, that's certainly one to watch, and I do know what James means. In fact, I went to a session this year where a presenter spoke as if he was talking to his class. Mind you, I heard every word he said, and I would not have done if he had read aloud. Here, I think, we need to adjust our presentation style to the audience. Being an academic is about communicating one's ideas, and engaging with others, and so one has to ask about the most effective means of doing that.

Also in comments, Jack Poirier continues to argue strongly in favour of reading papers:

I'll continue my theme of supporting the reading of papers: If someone "presents" their paper without reading it, and I happen to be really interested in what they have to say, then I'm in the unfortunate position of having to get a copy of the paper and read it for myself just to see all the stuff that was left out of the presentation. That's why I prefer a paper to be read: then you know that you're getting it all (except perhaps the footnotes). I would hate to go to a conference where everyone presented. The more I liked the papers, the more homework I would have after the conference.

I understand what Jack is saying here, and I have some sympathy with it. My guess is that Jack is far better at concentrating on academic papers than I am. I am afraid that I drift away very quickly when people read, so I hear much less when they read aloud than when they present. I have also noticed that I am much more likely to fall asleep in read papers than in presentations, so again I get to hear less of a read aloud paper. There is an assumption too in what Jack writes that papers are fuller than the presentations, that presentations leave things out. I don't think that that is necessarily the case. A presentation can sometimes provide more information than can a read-aloud paper because there are different ways of communicating information when one is not reading.

Back to April's post, there are some helpful reflections on the multiple sessions, arguing that they can help to hone research, with like-minded people meeting together on a given topic of interest. There is a lot in that, but I suppose that I am concerned about the over-specialisation in the discipline that ultimately detracts from research that goes across boundaries and encourages conversations between different sub-fields. To speak of my own interests, for example, I had to miss sessions on Jesus and film which I would have loved to have attended because I was in other sessions that touched on other areas of interest. This year I did manage to get to one session on Paul, but at the expense of the Synoptics section which was meeting at the same time, and I was the co-chair of that section. I missed all the meetings of the Mark Group because they were timetabled at the same time as other sessions that I needed to attend, and that in spite of being a member of the Mark Group. I can't even begin to think about getting to sessions on Luke-Acts, or on Matthew, or on, say, the Gospel of Judas, one of the sessions I would have liked to attend. And so on. I just use myself by way of illustration; I know others feel the same way. If nobody can get to a fraction of the sessions that they would like to get to, I think there are too many sessions.

I am glad to see that April agrees with me on the problem of extending the conference to 9am on Saturday morning. It's another case in point -- there were two sessions I wanted to get to at that time but I had two meetings to attend. April also echoes the point made elsewhere about room sizes:

Please judge room size better. I cannot believe that the panel on Judas where Elaine Pagels and Karen King were responding to Birger Pearson, Louis Painchaud, and me was put in a room that seated 75. People were sitting in the aisles, along the perimeter of the room, and hanging out the door. Those crammed in the doorway told me that at least 50 people tried to get into the room, but finally left exasperated.

I agree. In most cases, this is one for the session chairs (see my post on SBL Room Sizes).

Update (Wednesday, 21.21): April DeConick makes an excellent case for Why Speciality Units at SBL Are Important. I might perhaps add that my own concern relates not to speciality units per se but to extensively overlapping units, but I may be wrong about that.

Labels: presenting papers, SBL San Diego

---

With the SBL Annual Meeting on the horizon, here are some thoughts about the use of technology in conference presentations. These emerge partly from the fact that I am trying to make my mind up about whether to use powerpoint or not in my paper, and this is the advice I am giving myself:

(1) Only use powerpoint if it will enhance your presentation. It is quite possible that the presentation will detract from your ability to communicate clearly and effectively. What are you hoping to achieve by using it? Do you need to show images or diagrams? Is there some kind of representation of the data that the visual aid of powerpoint will help?

(2) If you use powerpoint, or any other projections from a computer, keep in mind that when you get there the technology may not work, even if you are well prepared and if there is a technical person on hand and everything else. Sometimes, nay often, an unforeseen technical hitch occurs. So if you are planning to use powerpoint, make sure you are not reliant on it. Make sure that you have a back-up plan, e.g. hand-outs are always worth preparing and seldom go wrong. Think of that happy comfort of knowing that you have your hand-outs all ready in your suitcase, and that all you have to do is make sure that the suitcase makes it with you. (And speaking of that, make sure you have your electronic back-up in your hand luggage or better, on the net, for when your suitcase goes missing).

(3) If you are planning to use your laptop for powerpoint, take a USB cable with you. You may get to the room and find a projector, a wire and no way to plug it into your laptop.

(4) Have a back-up plan in case your laptop goes on the blink. Take your powerpoint presentation on your flashdrive too, so that you can plug it into a PC in the room, or someone else's laptop, in case of difficulties. And take your presentation on a CD-ROM too just in case neither laptop nor flashdrive works with the PC in the room.

(5) You may lose your CD-ROM and flashdrive, so make sure that you have also loaded your presentation somewhere on the net, either by emailing it to yourself, putting it on Yahoo!briefcase, or whatever.

(6) If you are not using unicode fonts in a presentation that needs the fonts to be displayed correctly (e.g. if using Greek or Hebrew), make sure you embed your fonts in your presentation. This is especially important for (4) above, where you are using your flashdrive or your CD-ROM for the presentation. You do not want your carefully planned Greek diagrams to be gobbledygook because you've used a nice Greek font that isn't going to show up on the room's PC.

(7) If you are planning to use your laptop, make sure that you know how to toggle between your laptop monitor and the projector. Don't expect someone else present, even a techie, to know how your laptop works; that's your responsibility.

(8) Arrive at least twenty minutes before the session you are speaking in begins so that you can introduce yourself to the chair, warn him/her that you are planning to use some technology, and get everything set up and tested. Remember that even if you are last in a two and a half hour session, you may not have a minute to sort out your technology during the session, so it is essential that you arrive in plenty of time before the beginning. That way you know well in advance of the session starting whether or not the technology is working. You then have time either to relax in the knowledge that all is well, or to find time to compose yourself in the knowledge that it is not.

(9) If the technology is not working, grit your teeth and get on with your presentation without mentioning it. Ideally, do not mention it at all. If you must, mention once and once only that you had prepared a great presentation. If you do have to do this, use humour and don't be resentful. Your audience may feel a bit sorry for you if you can't show your powerpoint, but that's the end of it. They will not appreciate it if you keep going on about how great your presentation would have been if only you could illustrate it properly. After a while they will stop feeling sorry for you and will start feeling embarrassed before you.

Now this probably sounds horribly neurotic, but every one of the things mentioned above are the result of my own direct experience, either presenting, chairing or participating in sessions using technology, and I offer them in the hope of sparing someone somewhere some anxiety.

Labels: presenting papers, Unicode

---

A couple of weeks ago, I offered some further reflections on the topic How to read a scholarly paper in dialogue with some of the other biblioblogs. I'd like to return to the topic again to comment on some of the subsequent comments. First, there were some excellent comments on my post. Ken Litwak noted that lectures and conference papers are different things in that one can control the expectations and knowledge-base of one's students, not so with the conference audience. I understand the point, though I would want to note that in my own experience the knowledge-base and expectations of the conference audience are in many ways clearer than those of my undergraduate audiences. Segments of the latter retain the capacity to surprise me over what they have not grasped on regular occasions. With an SBL audience, you can take for granted the key terms, the key authors, the consensus positions and so on. But Ken adds that his own SBL paper featured precise comparisons of the LXX and the Greek NT and that this would not have lent itself to powerpoint. Unfortunately, I missed Ken's paper and would certainly not presume to comment on what would work best for him and his topic. But I would add that in other cases, the precise detail is often the very thing that does lend itself to visual aids because it helps the listener to focus on the specific detail to which the speaker is drawing attention. As I mentioned before, my preference is for hand-outs over powerpoint because of the all too frequent technical anxieties and because, if I have understood correctly, it is the preferred option of some disabled members of the audience.

But John Poirier agrees completely with Ken and writes:

For many papers I've heard at conferences, I would have felt cheated if they had been merely presented as lectures, without all the fine details and precise nuances of the argument being given. I'd rather be bored than short-changed: READ the paper.

I understand Jack's point here but disagree with it, at least as far as my own experience goes. For me, the very problem with the paper that is read-out, and especially the one that is "speed read", is that the fine details and precise nuances of the argument are lost. However much one thinks that one is putting together a persuasive, detailed argument when one is writing it in the privacy of one's study, the fact is that the nuances and the detail often gets lost in the reading out, especially in the absence of a hand-out or some powerpoint. The question I am asking myself here is how much of the read-out paper am I actually hearing? If I am "bored", to use Jack's word, don't I lose the detail and the nuances while I am daydreaming about Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Larry (no surname) comments that in presiding at sessions, it is worse if your speakers have a non-read-out paper than if they have a read-out one. I am not so sure; as Tim Bulkeley says, there are offenders of both kinds. Tim has some useful advice:

Yes, you are presenting complex arguments that need the solidity of well prepared (and probably read) text, but if you do not engage with the audience they might as well stay at home and READ the paper when it is published. That way they avoid quite a few duds ;)

So... read the complex detailed bits, but speak to the body.

The comments here about staying at home and reading the paper get to the heart of my concern here. If all we do is to read out a proto-article, why not just distribute it at the session and let everyone read it in their own time, so picking up more of the detail and nuance, and then have more time for discussion?

For blog comment, see Stephen Carlson's updated entry on Hypotyposeis, Torrey Seland's update in Philo of Alexandria blog, David Meadows's comments in RogueClassicism and Edward Cook in Ralph the Sacred River. Responding to my point about the disjunction between our tendency not to read in everyday lectures against reading in conference presentations, Edward comments:

Part of the problem is (and I don't want to get too political here) the reversal of the power relations at a scholarly gathering. One's students are in a very real way in one's power; if they are lucky, you are a benign, charming, personable, just, and funny dictator. But at a scholarly presentation one is at best among equals, and at worst in front of those who may have something to say about how one's work or reputation may either grow or wither. In either case, the audience has to be won over. If they already know and like you, this will be easy; if not, the work will be harder.

This is an excellent point, and well made, and one I quite understand. I suppose I would add that I am not saying that it is an easy option to speak / present rather than to read aloud. But if our profession is about communication of ideas, then the highest challenge is indeed the coherent articulation and presentation of our ideas to our peers, and perhaps it is one that we would benefit from engaging in. Edward elaborates:

Therefore I wish to question the assumption of "friendly faces." In general, I think one can and should assume basic good will in the audience; however, many of us have seen, during the question period, the spectacle of self-important senior scholars skewering hapless grad students or young scholars just (as it seems) for the fun of it, or because one of their own pet ideas has been questioned. I think that first-time presenters are often intimidated by the presence in the audience of revered or venerable names previously known only from books or journals; and this fear can lead to nervously presented and feebly defended presentations, or to a dogged (and dull) effort to cover all the bases.

Also agreed, though I would say that an audience is sometimes the more generous when they perceive that the speaker is struggling; on good days, they will be tougher on the seasoned speakers who have that touch more confidence and enjoy the challenge of the battle. But I'd add too that the agonising scenario painted above is in any case related more to the question-and-answer session than to the paper proper. And the speed-reading of a ready-prepared proto-article is not a great way to lay the ground work for a successful question-and-answer session. Perhaps if the culture were to shift in favour of speaking / presenting, the question-and-answer session would not be so agonising.

And finally, Edward writes:

Two things are necessary to solve this problem; one is the growth of courtesy on the part of long-time practitioners of scholarship to those entering the guild. Perhaps we have already seen the last of the ritual disembowelings! I fervently hope so. The other thing is the growth in awareness of what we have been talking about: how to make a paper clear, interesting, and compelling.

Does the SBL offer any kind of advice to first-time presenters? It seems to me that this is something its Career Services department could fruitfully address. (Perhaps it already has; I'm coming late to the discussion.)

The latter point is a great idea. I know that there was a leaflet available at this year's SBL for first time attendees, but I don't think there was anything about first time presenters. The former point is a good one too. We need leadership from the "long-time practitioners of scholarship", the top brass. I might not have thought about presenting a paper rather than reading one if I had not heard one of the scholars I most admire presenting rather than reading papers, Michael Goulder. So an appeal to the top brass: set us an example on how to do it.

Labels: presenting papers

---

On new blog Ralph the Sacred River, Edward Cook has some interesting comments on "How to read a scholarly paper", following on from Torrey Seland's comments and mine, and see now also Stephen Carlson in Hyptoposeis. Let me second Stephen's and Torrey's pleas for handouts. I must admit to finding a well structured outline on a handout a real boon to listening to a paper. What worries me about preparing handouts for conference papers, and this is reflected also in Stephen's comments, is the concern about numbers. It is so difficult to guess the audience you are going to get, especially at the SBL. And do you take a sheet and hope to goodness that you can find reasonably priced photocopying facilities at your destination, and the time to use them? If you're coming from the UK, you then have to make sure you've prepared it in American letter size rather than A4. Well, down that route lies too much anxiety. So you do it before you go and you end up with your suitcase half-full of handouts which, in your neurosis, you think might be needed for your session. Well, for all the stress, I'd encourage people to go for the handout solution as far as possible. I'm a big user of handouts in everyday undergraduate lecturing. One additional advantage is that it is the preferred option of some disabled users. In fact I recall sitting next to someone with poor eyesight at a conference paper where OHTs (Overhead projector Transparencies) were used and he could not see anything on screen at all, and was not able to follow the paper.

Ed writes:

First of all, it's too scary to present without anything written at all. Mark, good for you, but this is going to be beyond most of us. There's always the possibility that you may dry up or space out in the middle of your talk, and you've got to have something in front of you to help out. HOWEVER: Don't bring an entire paper that you're planning to have published somewhere. Prepare a reading script instead. I always do this now; a reading script is different than a full-blown scholarly treatment, in that it's shorter, hopefully clearer, and leaves out subsidiary and supporting material that is inessential for oral presentation. I've learned that for a 20-25 minute presentation, a script of 10-15 pages is ample.

I agree with this absolutely. I should add here that I am not personally in favour of presenting "without anything written at all". I think it is worth taking a script, as a kind of security blanket, or to take a card with some headings and some key-words on it, or whatever prompt might be useful. For myself, I take written bits and bobs and have them ready in case needed, but aim to be familiar enough with the material and the structure of what I want to say that I will only refer to those if necessary.

The reason for my bringing this up in the first place is the idea that there is something necessarily superior, something more academically appropriate about reading a paper. This is the thing that I am struggling with. What I remain bothered about is the disjunction between the way we all work in our day-to-day lecturing and the way we behave at conferences. What I suspect is that one has simply not caught up with the other. We are in the habit of reading out papers not because we have thought it through and have decided that it is the best way to communicate with other scholars but because it is an academic convention, something we have all inherited, that we assume is the way to do things without question. A hundred years ago, I'd bet you'd hear most of your undergraduate lectures read-out by your lecturers. Under such circumstances, it was natural to read-out conference papers too. But now none of us read out lectures to undergraduates, do we? So this is how I am beginning to see it, with apologies if I am overstating the case. If we are comfortable lecturing ex tempore on a day-by-day basis, over a much longer time period (hour long lectures), on topics that are not always intimately related to our research (we all lecture on stuff we have never written on), to people less patient than scholars (undergraduate students), then surely it is a more straightforward thing to talk for 20-25 minutes to friendly faces on material we know intimately?

Labels: presenting papers

---

Wednesday, 1.20 a.m., flying over the Atlantic. I made the connecting flight in Newark with five minutes to spare so will, after all, be back in Birmingham by morning; greatly relieved.

So back to my narrative of events at this year's SBL. I'll go back to Sunday. In the 1 pm slot I was speaking in the Mark Group on "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative", part of a themed session on the death of Jesus in Mark, the first of three. I like speaking in the Mark Group, the second time I have done so. Papers are circulated in advance and one is given twenty minutes to "summarize" one's paper followed by 25 minutes of discussion. As I have mentioned previously, the general habit seems to be to read papers, both here and elsewhere at the SBL, but I decided this year to have a go at extempore delivery on the grounds that it is much easier to communicate with your audience this way. Having listened to many papers being read out, I reckon that less than 50 per cent of what is being read out gets heard or, rather, listened to. A read-out paper simply washes over its audience, who only pick up bits and bobs as their concentration comes in and out. Well, I was pleased that I gave it a go. I felt that I was able to communicate more directly, was able to see people's faces while I talked and could gauge reaction as I spoke. So it's something I will definitely do again. I received some very helpful comments and questions on the paper. Larry Hurtado asked about the relationship between the "scripturalization" thesis and the liturgical thesis and whether the latter is dependent on the former, or held to strengthen the former, or whether either can stand alone. It helps me to reflect about strategy and how I go about working on these two interrelated theses, one of which (the liturgical theory) will be unpalatable to some. I also had a useful question on the term "liturgy", which suggests that to some the term conjurs up the wrong kinds of image, of set liturgies in contemporary worship. Joel Marcus was sceptical about the liturgical theory and asked how it could be taken from speculation to establishing probability. I replied that I thought that NT scholarship would be more interesting and engaging if we learned to think of speculation as a positive rather than a negative term, adding that informed speculation is a virtue where our alternative is to go ignorant. But I also noted that in Crossan's theory (for example), only one of the time indicators in Mark's narrative, the darkness at midday, is explained, whereas in my theory all the time indicators receive an explanation, so I win over Crossan by eight to one. But that slightly frivolour answer aside, it's another useful reminder of the importance of thinking about how I lay out the case when I write my book on the topic. It really is very useful to get reactions to one's research in progress.

Incidentally, that session was really well attended. The other two speakers also generated some useful and interesting discussion. I am ashamed to say that as I sit on the plane late at night I cannot remember their names, though the first was Jocelyn. I'll check it up later.

Labels: presenting papers

---

Saturday, 16.13: Computer Assisted Research Group. I am disappointed to discover that there is no wireless internet access here, or at least nothing for free (rates in the Convention Center are $4.95 an hour or $24.95 a day). In the past the CARG has been a good place to come to do a bit of emailing, blogging or the like while listening in to a paper that in any case one has little hope of understanding. In fact, I can't see the bank of computers in here either that has always been a feature in the past. So the best option seems to be to jot some thoughts down in notepad and blog them later from my hotel room.

I met Jim Davila earlier today and was disappointed to discover that there is no chance this year of his repeating his science fiction feat of last year and blogging through the TV set. Shame.

11.30 there was the traditional meeting of the e-listers and a good chance to catch up with some old friends and meet some new ones. There were several cameras there and a group photograph, so look out for it on Jim Davila's blog and on the biblical e-lists in due course.

The first session I got to was the Synoptic Gospels Section's first meeting at 1 p.m. Greg Carey was presiding and there were four papers. The first was a fascinating presentation from Robert Miller, asking whether Matthew is telling the story of a virginal conception. I was familiar with the thesis already, having read his Born Divine, and also knowing Jane Schaberg's The Illegitimacy of Jesus which first developed this thesis. I still cannot make my mind up on whether Schaberg and Miller are right about this. But one of the things I admire about the way Miller presents the thesis is that he does so with full acknowledgement that it is possible to read Matthew as telling the story of a virginal conception, though he thinks that it is not.

The next speaker was Jeff Peterson from Austin School of Theology and his topic was "Dismissing the Sanhedrin". He picked up on the work of E. P. Sanders, Martin Goodman, Fergus Millar and others who have argued that we should not think in terms of one, concrete Sanhedrin with appointed members in the New Testament period, but should instead translate most occurrences of SUNEDRION in the Gospels as "council". I have long found this thesis essentially persuasive and have been constantly surprised that so few New Testament scholars appear to know of it, or to allow it to impinge on their studies of the Passion Narrative. I was delighted to hear Jeff moving this thesis to the foreground and encouraging Synoptic scholars to take it seriously.

Jeffrey Gibson then spoke on the Sign of Jonah. Jeffrey is always worth hearing, the delivery half the enjoyment. I read his paper on the plane on the way over and it did not make the same impact as hearing it delivered today.

I sneaked out after Jeffrey had spoken, not because I didn't want to hear Pamela Shellberg (one always feels so guilty about leaving just before someone else is about to speak), but because I wanted to catch Stephen Carlson in the Textual Criticism seminar. He was talking about "The Origin(s) of the 'Caesarean' Text"; I wish I was able to summarise his paper effectively here, but it was to do with stemmatics and cladistics and explained how he had used a computer programme to generate a Stemma for Mark 6.45--8.26. I dashed back to the Synoptics straight after that.

The CARG is currently in session. Although it is somewhere I often like to hang out at these events, not least because I have spoken here five times in the past, I am here primarily to hear Matthew Brook O'Donnell and Catherine Smith speak about the future of electronic synopses, which should be up next. This is a subject of great interest to me (what is there not to like about something that deals with both the Synopsis and computers?); also I am supervising Catherine's PhD dissertation in Birmingham, which deals with a related topic.

One of the striking differences about the CARG in comparison to many of the other sections is that speakers rarely actually read out papers. Because they are illustration-rich, they tend to "speak to" their topic. Now I've been wondering recently why it is that so many academics read out their papers so often -- it's the standard. I am toying with the idea of not reading out my own paper to the Mark Group tomorrow. My reason for wondering about this is that there is something absurd about writing out a paper and then reading out one's own voice, sometimes stumbling over the very words that one has written. Why not just talk about it? We all do this when we lecture all the time -- very few scholars these days read out lectures to undergraduates, do they?

I've asked a few people about this business of reading out papers and why it is the norm. One colleage said to me that it is for him a question of timing. Another said that it was fear. It was all about the importance of making sure that one does not say anything erroneous or silly. I think that that may be the best reason I have heard yet, but I wonder whether it's sufficient. I would say that audiences are sympathetic to people who give a paper extempore and understand that one is not going strictly on the record with every tiny nuance of one's speech. Well, I think I am going to have a bash at talking mine tomorrow instead of reading it. I will let you know if it's a disaster and whether I will be trying it again afterwards.

I have not yet had sufficient chance to get around the book exhibition. Anyone who has been to the SBL Annual Meeting will know how absolutely massive the book exhibition is. One of the problems (or delights) with going around it is that one meets someone one knows every few steps. That is a fun thing, but it means that I never actually get around to looking at all the books I want to. I'll have another go tomorrow.

Labels: presenting papers

---