[postwait]

"Talks should always be reactionary rather than anticipatory: they’re going to come off as more natural, more interesting, and above all, more valuable."

I think that's not true at all. There is room for both. I would say do not mix them. Talks can either share what's been done or share what can be from a visionary perspective.

[holman]

Admittedly I slipped an "always" in there when I shouldn't have; I agree that anticipatory talks can be great, too.

Let's put it this way, though: for a beginning or first-time speaker, I'll maintain that talks should be reactionary. There are more than enough other things to worry about going into your first talk that it's really comforting to talk about your past experiences than try to prepare a new project or a "what-if" for an arbitrary conference date. That's more the target market I meant with that (admittedly broad) statement.

[follower]

I would recommend you seriously consider re-wording the "reactionary rather than anticipatory" sentence on your blog. (The number of confused/questioning comments here on HN about the use of those terms suggests I'm not the only one. :) )

The sentence in your post above explains your intention much more clearly:

"There are more than enough other things to worry about going into your first talk that it's really comforting to talk about your past experiences than try to prepare a new project or a 'what-if' for an arbitrary conference date."

As I understand it, what you're wanting to convey is that it's better to choose a topic where you can talk about "what I've done" rather than "what I hope to do". The "reactionary"/"anticipatory" terms don't clearly convey that intention and seem to me to be incorrect terms to use.

(I don't have a specific suggestion for replacement terms--"retrospective" is one option but has a slightly negative connotation.)

Aside from that, thanks for sharing your experiences. :)