I read last week that the art of conversation is dead. This is the era of the text and the tweet where we give and receive information in small doses. We communicate more but we talk less. Digital communication also lets you plan what you want to say whereas in real time we don’t know where a conversation is going to lead, and that makes us nervous.
Such claims are nothing new. Technology has often been blamed for having a detrimental effect on face-to-face communication. In 1889 a newspaper article suggested that telephones should not be allowed in private houses for fear of the damage they could do to “real” conversations. Way back in the 4th century BC Socrates was complaining that writing ideas down was not as good as talking about them one to one because the way to learn was through debate.
A conversation is usually defined as two or more people talking together. That said, it doesn’t include something as simple as just saying hello, or someone giving another person orders or directions. We have conversations for lots of reasons. Often it is simply to exchange information, to update family or friends on what has been going on in our lives or to chat about other people. One particular element of conversation is discussion: sharing opinions on subjects that crop up during a conversation. This can often be the most stimulating type of conversation to have, sharing ideas and opinions, and it is this ability that some psychologists are claiming we have lost.
Back in the 18th century, conversation was a status symbol. Mrs Thrale, a friend of Samuel Johnson, mocked a Cit who complained: “I am invited to conversations, I go to conversations, but alas! I have no conversation.” In Persuasion, Anne Elliott expresses what was probably Jane Austen’s own view: My idea of good company...is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation.” Evidently Anne Elliott was not interested in small talk. She wanted a stimulating discussion.
Naturally a lot of eminent people have an opinion on conversation. Samuel Johnson found people who were interested in learning more than talking to be the best conversationalists because they listened, remembered and asked intelligent questions. Agatha Chritie’s Hercule Poirot saw it as a means of investigation: “There is nothing so dangerous for anyone who has something to hide as conversation! A human being, Hastings, cannot resist the opportunity to reveal himself and express his personality which conversation gives him. Every time he will give himself away”. And the 18th century the writer Leigh Hunt had a top tip: If you are ever stuck in a flagging conversation, introduce the topic of eating. I’ve no idea if that works in modern society but perhaps we all have our favourite topics for helping to ease a sticky conversation.
When it comes to love, conversation is vitally important. Many courtesans throughout history were renowned for their conversational prowess as much as their erotic skills. An invitation to their salons was highly prized. Conversation, it was felt, was part of their seduction technique. The same could be said to apply to the rest of us. How many of us have been attracted to someone as much – or more - by their conversation as their good looks or other attributes? We see this a lot in literature and films. There’s the Prince in Ever After, for a start, who is fascinated by the way Danielle challenges him on points of philosophy and shows her his library on one of their dates. There’s Tom Lefroy seducing Jane Austen with books in Becoming Jane. We all have our favourite scenes in romantic novels where the dialogue zings between hero and heroine.
So what is your idea of good conversation? Is it an intense discussion with the people who really matter to you or is a relaxed chat with friends over a cup of coffee? Both? And do you have a favourite passage in a romantic book or film where the conversation captures the essence of the characters’ attraction?