A Good Talk: The Story and Skill of Conversation

by Daniel Menaker

A GOOD TALK is an analysis of and guide to that most exclusively human of all activities-- conversation .

Drawing on over forty years of experience in American letters, Menaker pinpoints the factors that drive and enliven every good the vagaries (and joys) of subtext; the deeper structure and meaning of conversational flow; the subliminal signals that guide our disclosures and confessions; and the countless other hurdles we must clear along the way. Moving beyond self-help musings and "how to" advice, he has created a stylish, funny, and surprising a celebration of "the most excusively human of all activities."

In a time when conversation remains deeply important-- for building relationships, for relaxing, even for figuring out who we are-- and also increasingly imperiled (with Blackberries and texting increasingly in vogue), A GOOD TALK is a refreshing celebration of the subtle adventures of a good conversation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Self Help, Communication, Relationships, Adult

240 pages, Hardcover

First published December 29, 2009

About the author

DANIEL MENAKER began his career as a fact checker at The New Yorker, where he became an editor and worked for twenty-six years. A former book editor, Menaker is the author of six books; he has written for the New York Times, the Atlantic, Parents, Redbook, and many others.

Reviews

[Aleah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I disliked this book a lot. I picked it up on a whim, thinking it would help me get rid of some of my social awkwardness. This book didn't affect my social skills at all. "A Good Talk: The Story And Skill of Conversation" is filled with nothing but cheap jokes and common sense situation events, like proof reading an email before punching the, 'Send' button.

This would have been a decent book if it wasn't for the confusing writing style. Daniel Menaker kept jumping from topic to topic and throwing in unnecessary jokes. His writing style is very distracting and personally, I don't think his words flowed smoothly. This is the first book I have disliked in a long time, and I am glad to see I am not alone.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ah! A little book on the history and art of conversing. Coming from a journalist and writer I was expecting a light yet agreeable read, containing at least a few interesting titbits on the topic. Well, bad luck! The whole is a complete waste and, ironically for a book revolving all around the art of a good conversation, dull to the point of being soporific, shallow to the point of being vain and, after we put it down (having learnt nothing!) cannot but feel relieved as when having just gotten rid of a bore!

You want to know more about the history and art of conversing? Go pick articles here and there on the internet, and you will learn more about it all than in this poor and badly written summary. His conversation analysis brings nothing interesting -they are just talks between his friends upon which he disserts with a stupefying banality. Worst: he just uses a very few references to illustrate his arguments, an tiny handful of books he hasn't even bother to read!

The good introduction was promising. The bibliography (embracing literature, philosophy and psychology) is not too bad. The rest... Useless wind! Stay clear.

[Freda Mans-Labianca · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very informative and interesting book on conversation. Actually a lot better than I thought it would be. The one criticism I have is the long conversation between Fred and Ginger. For me, that was the most painfully boring part. The other aspects of the book were great. I especially enjoyed a joke that I will share;

After he'd used the toilet one day, a woman said to him, "Why, Mr. Johnson, your penis is sticking out." Johnson replied, "You flatter yourself, Madame-- it is only hanging out."
~Page 44.

That is one conversation, made up or not, that I won't soon forget. I suggest if you are curious about conversation, and the techniques in it, grab a copy. You may or may not like the book. It really is an acquired taste.

[Michelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

DUMB! This guy does not know how to write, he blathers on and on about stuff completely unrelated to conversation, and he has no research to support his claims! Recording an hour long conversation is not research, nor does it make thrilling reading material to read a script of. Honestly! What a dumb book! I thought it would be good because I'm really interested in conversation and language, but it was VERY disappointing.

[AdultNonFiction Teton County Library · Rating 3 out of 5]

TCL Call Number: 302.346 Menaker D

Diana's rating: 3 stars
I picked this book up hoping for some pointers on being a better conversationalist, and what I got instead was sort of an observation on how conversations evolved and what their components are. I did appreciate that the author applied humor to the topic, and wrote in a conversational style, and I will try to remember the three qualities of a conversationalist he called essential: curiosity, humor and impudence.

[Julia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just could not finish this book. Definitely wasn't what I was expecting, but I'm not sure what I was expecting. The sample conversation was dull and took up too many pages.

[Summerlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF'd this after 15 pages. He made so many questionable claims so early ?? His humor is straight up bad. I cannot believe this was written only like 15 years ago.

[AnnaMay · Rating 2 out of 5]

So, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the point of this book was.

I was chuckling quite often throughout the first few chapters, I guess, but the book just never really took me anywhere.

I thought the name-dropping in the last chapter was lame.

I thought the sample conversation he included was cool in regard to subject matter (writers talking about how to get their gig working.) Other than that, though, this book came across as very indulgent on the author's part. He seemed to be having a great time writing it, but I just didn't come away a better conversationalist as a result.

I DID come away realizing that Menaker knows a lot of famous people (half of the references to people I was clueless on--who likes to read a book that makes them feel dumb but then leaves them dumb?) and he knows of a lot of other books about conversation.

I'm left kind of scratching my head and thinking, 'Okay. I read the book, but I just don't get it.'

He's very witty. I'll give him that. He included a few too many references to sex in his humor, though.

I guess 'good job' to Menaker for publishing a book. There must be SOMEONE out there who'll really dig it and benefit from reading it, I guess.

I'm out to find another conversation book that will help me hone my skills and be an enjoyable guest at a party.

[Steve · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received this book as a goodreads giveaway. In summary; A Good Talk briefly theorizes on the origin of conversation before presenting a conversation to be analyzed. The later part of the book explores some of the stumbling blocks to good conversation.
David Menaker has great fun in postulating the origins of conversation. His enthusiastic, tongue in cheek approach pulls us through the a brief, enjoyable exposition and history of conversations. At least, as he admits, from a Western society point of view. However, I did find myself getting impatient with the dialogues that were presented to be deconstructed. They were too lengthy, and not very interesting. Much shorter versions would have been adequate to illustrate the components/roles of conversation. I would like to eavesdrop on a good talk, but the ones presented here were not what I would consider good. Which was unfortunate. Could have used more analysis/ideas on what makes a great talk than what was spent on the inconsequential small talk presented in A Good Talk. Which I believe the book was not meant to cover, but I wish it did. So this wasn't exactly the book I hoped it would be.

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't learn anything at all from this book. Conversation analysis seems like an interesting field of study, and I thought there'd be a lot of cool topics to cover. For example, just off the top of my head, here are some things I thought the book might have talked about: the use of slang and accents in conversation, and how it differentiates in-crowd and out-crowd; how people of different ages and social statuses talk to each other; the evolution of pace and verbosity in conversation throughout history; differences in topic and conversational style between cultures; verbal and non-verbal communication in humans and other animals; etc.

I only list those things as hypothetical examples, because the book actually covered nothing of interest. Half the book was just a transcription of a conversation the author had with another writer, followed by some half-assed analysis. Then there was a section on tips for conversation, such as how if you're talking to a boring person maybe you can find common ground by talking about someone you hate... Yeah, I didn't like this book at all.

[S · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read a few books on conversations and found this to be different. I really liked that Menaker has added a transcribed conversation as part of the text. Although - the analysis was disappointing. If you know the basic components of a conversation then the exemplar provided was excellent.

I found the author's pace really fast - it was like reading a commentary. For this reason, I would not recommend this book as an introductory text on communication/conversational skills. In saying that, I am glad for the historical lesson given in the second chapter (specially the mention of Socratic method of inquiry). Menaker's writing style is unique and I think most people won't appreciate his humour. Overall, this book filled a few gaps in my existing knowledge.

[Scott Finlayson · Rating 1 out of 5]

i can save you the time and expense of picking up and reading this book. almost every conversational example in the book involves a staged or recalled conversation with the author; not exactly a broad cross section of participants.

there are some interesting tidbits, but for the most part you can run with the following approaches and skip the rest. the 4 stages involved in a good conversation, should you make it through all, are SURVEY, DISCOVERY, RISKS, ROLES. the acronym CHI (not the spiritual energy force) is suggested as the best approach - Curiosity, Humour, Impudence. roll with this in mind and figure out the rest for yourself.

[Deanna Sutter · Rating 1 out of 5]

I won this on goodreads.

I flat did not like this book. I'm not saying this isn't a good book though. I am just saying I didn't like it.

The author was all over the place with random "humor" and conversation. The book seemed totally illogical. Which I think was the point. I was hoping for a Dale Carnegie practical and appropriate book. This is not it.

If you want to read a humorous book that talks about nothing, please read this book.

[Bill]

This book is complete crap. Let me sum it up for you - New York lefty writes book under the guise of how to understand 'conversation' and uses this premise to simply expose his hard-left point of view on anything and everything. Oh I forgot - lazy as well - half the book is simply a transcript of conversations with like minded people, who've also never been out of left-wing cocoon of New York liberalism.

Waste of money.

[Dawn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm at a loss for what caused me to put this book on my 'to-read' list in the first place. Perhaps it is because I do love the fine art of conversation. But, this book took a historical and, put simply, a boring take on the topic. Skimmed through 90% of the book looking for something of interest, but alas, found nothing.

[Jane · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overwritten, arch, unfocused, and meandering. As if that weren't enough, at the end, we are subjected to his political beliefs. What a disappointment! I had hoped to learn something useful from this sophisticated gentleman.

[Kurt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Heard about this on NPR. The review sounded amazing. REALLY did not like it. They actually fill a large section of the book with a conversation between two people. The entire book up to that point all felt very much like fill.

[Ellen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess when you are "one of America's most accomplished literary figures," you get to publish whatever the hell you want. Even if it's not nearly as funny or interesting as you think it is.

[Lee Harrington · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was great. As a shy writer, I'm always looking for tips on how to be a good conversationalist :) I recommend this book highly.

[Joachim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay, I'll start by giving a couple of my first impressions from reading this:

-This guy must have hit the record for the number of long, confusing, and extensively worded sentences. Sometimes it's easy to get lost in this book and he does this: "blah blah blah ― AND blah blah blah blah blah blah― blah blah blah" a lot. I find it really annoying and he does ramble at times but if you can follow along fine, good for you.
-A lot of high-level vocabulary and rhetoric, much of which overcomplicates things and is difficult to sort through. Although that might just be a symptom of his 20 or so years of experience as a writer and his professional background.
-He does have a good bit of humor

Now I'll give a chapter breakdown:

-The beginning of the book, comprising the intro and second chapter about the history of conversation was mildly interesting. There were some good things to know about the story conversation and he goes into a lot of historical details. It was okay
-The 3rd chapter has some genuinely decent conversational tips and this is where he actually gives you his approach to dissecting conversation in everyday life and breaking down how it works/how we do it and the important parts of it. I would say it's a good part of the book if you're into that type of thing or are more curious as to some of the key details as to why we talk, how conversation plays out, and general guidelines and thoughts about it.
―However, the 4th chapter of the book to me was a pointless waste of time with two people babbling on and on and it was not worth reading. I skipped it and unless you really want to know some background details about their lives and need extensive examples of how to talk to someone, you should skip it too
― Finally, I think the last few chapters, especially the afterwords was the best part of the book and especially in the afterwords section, the author does a good job of highlighting important aspects of conversation and explains why it's important in the context of society today. Maybe I'm just overly pragmatic or something but I think this was the part with the most solid, realistic advice that you actually can get something out of and apply.

[Conner · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book did not feel much like an instructional book so much as a meandering journey with some fairly useless tips thrown in.

Some of the advice is very unrelatable and reeks of the author being out of touch. The part about how you should be careful about name-dropping famous people you know comes to mind. Y'know, how we all know famous people? We all are close friends with at least a few famous people, right?

I wouldn't call this a bad book, but it was absolutely not what I was hoping for. I was looking for some sort of instructional book, or at the very least, a useful guidebook that would outline the structure of conversations. As it stands, this book feels far too... "all over the place" to function as any kind of guide or reference material.

[Lori · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh. Started, couldn't finish it. Besides the unnecessary misogynistic asides about women talking too much and taking too long to say goodbye, I powered though but found little that was constructive for building my own personal arsenal for conversation. Very disappointing.

[Michael Beanland · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not finished, abandoned.

It reads like a too-clever New Yorker article extended into a over-long essay
And then stretched into a short book

Not terribly helpful

[Giovanna Basso]

Hillarious but slightly outdated.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a question I’ve heard that asks, “If you could have dinner with five people, dead or alive, who would they be?” I believe I will have Daniel Menker as a waiter at my party, thereby ensuring the conversation around the table would be a perfect combination of hilarity and profundity. Menker is talented and witty. He believes there are three things essential to a conversation: curiosity, humor, and impudence. The book is structured like an essay, covers a swath of topics and ends with a convincing argument of the vital importance of conversation to every individual and the impact it has and must continue to have on our collective world. One of my favorite subjects of the book were suggestions to rescue the conversation with a bore by discussing 1. Top Ten Lists. 2. People one doesn’t speak to. 3. So what is an average day like for you? You get up and...do what? The final recommendation recommends escape.

Some language, one f-word.


Favorite Quotes
As far as *!()& cursing is concerned, where the *!()& do you go for the *!()& language of real *!()& anger or genuinely transgressive *!()& obscenities when you *!()& spend all of the words in obscenity’s wallet on cheap, everyday, nondescript communication? This is a lost battle and a lost conversational resource.

A successful job interview (one that results in being hired) may be crucial. But it may also keep the applicant from getting a different job that would have been better. That is crucial, too…A successful college interview (one that ensures admission) may be crucial. But it may also deprive the applicant of the chance to be taught by Professor Lifechanger, at another institution. We just don’t know what we may be missing if our proposal or application or deal is accepted, but we tend to narrativize what does happen to us as being what was meant to happen to us. Meant by what-or Whom-I would ask.
The fact is that unless we’re just plain lucky or unlucky in love or in life, both randomness and character will more fully determine our fates than any particular plan or meeting or interview will.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

The history of conversation is given a somewhat thin treatment but is interesting nevertheless. Considering that the topic could and does fill multiple volumes it is hardly a fatal flaw. The rest of the book deals with a taped conversation the author has and he uses the transcript of the conversation to highlight his theory of conversation. It is a slightly effective tactic. I don't mean that to be damning with faint praise. It just doesn't blow the reader away and probably could have been done just as effectively without pages upon pages of the conversation breaking up his analysis. All this being said, the topic was interesting enough and his writing funny to make the book an enjoyable read to anyone interested in the art of conversation. However, everyone would be better off if is editor had persuaded him to cut the last chapter. It contains a semi-political social critique that while it somewhat follows from his topic is rambling (like my review, not in a good way), simple-minded, and shows how out of his element the writer is once he wades in uncharted territory. The enjoyment of reading this book was completely ruined by the bitter taste that was left by his heavy handed political rant.

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was very excited when I picked up this book from the library! The first couple of pages, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself chuckling unexpectedly. Within a few more pages, I found myself smiling, frowning, then rolling my eyes. I began to frown because every other sentence seemed to have a pause in the middle with a humorous side-note. I just wanted to finish a whole sentence without having to analyze 2 in 1! The structure sounded as though he spoke the book out loud and simply had it transcribed. That style would be great for a conversation with a friend, but it was horrible trying to plow through a book written that way. My reading slowed to a crawl. I (thankfully) realized within the first chapter that this book was not what I was looking for; A book on skills to hone during conversation.

I don't understand how a book that was written so poorly could have made me chuckle so often.
Witty, intelligent author. Not a great writer.

I couldn't finish this book. I was surprised (and unhappy) that I found a book that I disliked even more than the second Twilight book. ...Although, I was able to actually finish that book.

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

If I'd read the one-star reviews before starting this book, I probably wouldn't have read it. As it is, I've only read parts and skipped over large sections, including the chapters that are a transcript of a conversation. The author's writing style is too flippant for my liking.

I agree with the author that in the last few decades, the increased use of profanity and decreased use of honorifics has made conversation less elegant and enjoyable.

Particularly interesting to me: "...if you sit down with someone and have a good talk, your sense of well-being afterward has not only a conscious component, but a neurochemical one as well. The one proceeds from the other. It is a 'high' and one that, like other highs, is habit-forming, but usually in a good way. You want more of it. You want more of it especially with those who are 'good' at it - which means that these others release in you that physiological reaction of feeling better, feeling good." Page 197

[Karima · Rating 3 out of 5]

If nothing else, read the last chapter. It's worth it's weight (which isn't much at 228 pages).
If you're looking for a how-to book/advice on the art of conversation, this isn't it. If you enjoy clever banter and literary/historical references, give it a gander.
I was initially put off by the author's all too frequent use of the phrase "it seems to me....". Also, he digresses a lot and, though his meanderings are often entertaining, he trips himself up and looses focus.
The last chapter was worth five stars and full of wisdom and generosity. Menaker believes (how could you NOT) that "every time people talk together in a social and gratifying way, the world becomes a better place".

Here's a gem from an exchange with interviewer Deborah Solomon:

Q: Do you find talk is...effective in war and diplomacy?
A: Yes...Talk, don't shoot. Talk.

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a First Reads winner!

One word summary: annoying

Long summary: I tried to read this book. I really did. In fact, I read every word - from the intro to the glossary. I wanted to like it and simply couldn't. In fact I repeatedly fell asleep for lack of interest.

It had some funny, witty, and clever parts but for the most part it was just poorly written. Thoughts would meander and change mid-paragraph. Opinions given by author came across as rude to people mentioned or at least immature to me the reader. He mocks name dropping then wastes the whole book doing just that. Too much self congratulating, proclaiming of opinions, and mishmashing poor research and random (ill-placed) quotes.