[paul]

Speaking and writing are more different than they seem. It's actually a different medium, and so a transcript of a great speech will often seem weak, just as a reading of a great essay may seem flat. Too much is lost in translation, which I think may the problem PG is encountering -- he first writes an essay and then translates it into a speech. Imagine a painter who creates a great painting and then tries to translate it directly into music -- will he be frustrated by the limitations of the medium?

To me, the power of speaking is that it temporarily creates a shared reality where the listener can actually be in the mind of the speaker. Several people here have mentioned hearing PG speak and finally understanding the sense of curiosity that produces so many of his ideas. Maybe the idea itself isn't quite as clear, but the inspiration that lead to the idea is more obvious, and that's often just as important (teach a man to fish...).

[randall]

I like to think of it in terms of communication bandwidth. The written word is low bandwidth, but if executed well, theoretically the ideas can be consumed more succinctly. Radio would be the next step up the spectrum, adding implied emotion into each word.

Video is next, and it's what I actually care about. I think if done correctly, like a really thorough, honest, well reported 60 minutes piece for instance, you get closer to being in the mind of the subject than you do in any other medium. Hearing someone say a quote, while watching them squirm (Clinton, Gates, etc.) give you a good idea of who someone is better than any other situation, except public speaking / one-on-one convos.

Web video isn't really doing a good job of this yet, and I think it's related to PG's idea that the writer of a script should spend all his/her time making the ideas better, while the actor can focus on the presentation layer.

If it were easier / had a shorter feedback loop to author the presentation / video layer, and the content layer were what was taking up the majority of the time, we could see more interesting video. Right now, the render / capture / upload / publish loop is so long, that it's just too difficult to meaningfully experiment in video as information, as opposed to video as entertainment, which is why YouTube's success has a foundation of quick funny bits, and not some informational underpinning.

[dan00]

"I like to think of it in terms of communication bandwidth. The written word is low bandwidth, but if executed well, theoretically the ideas can be consumed more succinctly."

I don't think there's a difference in bandwidth, but that an essay can use the whole bandwidth for words (ideas) and in a speech the bandwidth has to be shared by words (ideas), acoustics and visuals.

[justincormack]

Radio and video may add to speech but bandwidth wise if it is just the words reading is so much faster that you have to add a vast amount to compete...