The Art of Conversation

Dave was one of my major clients when I was starting out as a consultant in the oil industry. Our business relationship ended when he was promoted to a senior management position in a different department. After that we met by accident, may be once every few years. Therefore, it was a surprise to run into him the other day and of all places in the lobby of a concert hall. Some friend had offered me a free ticket for a performance of Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra. In the first half a young pianist played Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No 1 to such effect that she received a standing ovation and sustained applause brought her back on stage no fewer than seven times. During the intermission, I stood near a pillar in the lobby and watched with amusement groups of finely dressed young and old men and women chatting excitedly. One had to talk a little louder to be heard and I was glad I had no company to shout at. But my good fortune was short lived. It was with some consternation that I saw Dave, a glass of red wine in his right hand, deftly working his way through the crowd towards me.

We exchanged pleasantries and checked on each other’s families. Then he discussed his health at a great length. Just when he was telling me about his last visit to the doctor a young woman, perhaps his daughter, joined us. During the conversation that followed he made a remark which stayed with me for several days. So far as I could tell it was made innocently and without malice. It was in context of my comment to the young lady, “Dave and I did a lot of work together at one time.” “Yes, I worked hard to make him a millionaire,” he had replied with a straight face,

I let the remark go by. It occurred to me later that it revealed some dissatisfaction with his situation, not envy with my good fortune. I was aware that Dave lived even more modestly than I did. It is hard to tell whether it was because he had a much larger family to support or there was a significant income disparity between us. Still, I was unhappy that I had not appropriately responded and gave it some thought. Three different replies came to mind:

1.“Dave, you were just one of many people I was working for”. This may have hurt him while boosting my ego in some strange way. This is the kind of answer that would have shot out of my big mouth in my young days. Obviously I have learnt something. It did not even occur to me till the next morning.
2.“Dave, I hope my work was worth what you paid for it”. This would have been a commonplace answer, may be slightly better than nothing but not much. This is usually what I am told when I thank my former clients for their business.
3.“Dave, you supported me when I was starting out and that was most appreciated then as it is now”. This would have been the graceful reply that would have made him feel better with himself and perhaps with me too. Not only that, it would have been correct and a true expression of my feelings. But I am too slow-witted to ever come up with the right response unlike the aunt of Dylan Thomas who said the right thing always.

Good conversation is an art which comes naturally to some, others become proficient in it with training and a few like me never learn it. The lack of this skill makes one introspective and solitary. Or is it because one is introspective that he does not develop the ability that every extrovert seems to have mastered? I do not really have the answer except to suggest that, contrary to the first impression, only a few of the extroverts have a good two-way conversation, quite often it is all about the person herself. This is also true that I have yet to come across an introvert who could converse fluently and interestingly. I do know many who do so admirably on paper. Unfortunately, much to my regret and that of my family and a few remaining friends I can not do either.




Comment

The fall of Harper government on March 25 after two and a half years of minority rule does not come as a surprise. The divided opposition and leadership upheavals in the main opposition party allowed Mr. Harper to carry on as if he had a substantial majority. He periodically blamed the opposition for not working together with the government while relying on their divisions and unpreparedness for the election to rub their noses and implement right wing policies unpopular with all but the most partisan Canadians. He played his hand close to his chest concentrating power into Prime Minister’s office, brooked no opposition within the party losing some very able lieutenants in the process, prorogued the parliament to survive a no-confidence motion, shielded critical information from the parliament and the public and emboldened by the successes of his undemocratic practices did what led to his government’s fall – he deliberately gave parliament the wrong information. It is not that the Conservatives didn’t do some good things. They managed the economy reasonably well during the meltdown but negated the impact by expensive policies on fighting crime and defense procurement.

The possibility of an interesting election campaign is remote because there is no vital issue at stake for most Canadians. A low turnout on the Election Day is almost assured for another reason. Most Canadians, young and old, are sick of election talk ever since Harper prorogued the parliament the first time. The streams of hot air from five mouths over next five weeks are only going to make it worse. The newspaper and TV will repeat the same comments day in and day out and the leaders will give the same speech whether they are in Moncton or in Burnaby. Promises will be made on tax cuts, no mention will be made of reduction in services. Long before May 2 arrives, most Canadians will be thinking of leaving the country for good. How can one vote in that frame of mind?

There are not many Canadians who harbour any doubts about the return of the Harper government. The Conservatives have built up a huge slush fund and they have no hesitation to spend it on false propaganda. Moreover, they have used, and will continue to do so, the government machinery for partisan advantage. Liberal leader has no charisma and the NDP leader is hell bent on dividing the centrist vote even if it helps the Conservatives. The die is heavily loaded in Harper’s favour. One can only hope that Quebec will once again save Canada from a calamity; a majority Harper government.