I cannot help wishing sometimes that English people had more theories about conversation.  Really good talk is one of the greatest pleasures there is, and yet how rarely one comes across it!  There are a good many people among my acquaintance who on occasions are capable of talking well.  But what they seem to lack is initiative, and deliberate purpose.  If people would only look upon conversation in a more serious light, much would be gained.  I do not of course mean, Heaven forbid! that people should try to converse seriously; that results in the worst kind of dreariness, in feeling, as Stevenson said, that one has the brain of a sheep and the eyes of a boiled codfish.  But I mean that the more seriously one takes an amusement, the more amusing it becomes.  What I wish is that people would apply the same sort of seriousness to talk that they apply to golf and bridge; that they should desire to improve their game, brood over their mistakes, try to do better.  Why is it that so many people would think it priggish and effeminate to try to improve their talk, and yet think it manly and rational to try to shoot better?  Of course it must be done with a natural zest and enjoyment, or it is useless.  What a ghastly picture one gets of the old-fashioned talkers and wits, committing a number of subjects to memory, turning over a commonplace book for apposite anecdotes and jests, adding dates to those selected that they may not tell the same story again too soon, learning up a list of epigrams, stuck in a shaving-glass, when they are dressing for dinner, and then sallying forth primed to bursting with conversation!  It is all very well to know beforehand the kind of line you would wish to take, but spontaneity is a necessary ingredient of talk, and to make up one’s mind to get certain stories in, is to deprive talk of its fortuitous charm.  When two celebrated talkers of the kind that I have described used to meet, the talk was nothing but a smart interchange of anecdotes.  There is a story of Macaulay and some other great conversationalist getting into the swing at breakfast when staying, I think, with Lord Lansdowne.  They drew their chairs to the fire, the rest of the company formed a circle round them, and listened meekly to the dialogue until luncheon.  What an appalling picture!  One sympathizes with Carlyle on the occasion when he was asked to dinner to meet a great talker, who poured forth a continuous flow of jest and anecdote until the meal was far advanced.  Then came a lull; Carlyle laid down his knife and fork, and looking round with the famous “crucified” expression on his face, said in a voice of agonized entreaty, “For God’s sake take me away, and put me in a room by myself, and give me a pipe of tobacco!” He felt, as I have felt on such occasions, an imperative need of silence and recollection and repose.  Indeed, as he said on another occasion, of one of Coleridge’s harangues, “to sit still and be pumped into is never an exhilarating process.”

That species of talker is, however, practically extinct; though indeed I have met men whose idea of talk was a string of anecdotes, and who employed the reluctant intervals of silence imposed upon them by the desperate attempt of fellow-guests to join in the fun, in arranging the points of their next anecdote.

What seems to me so odd about a talker of that kind is the lack of any sense of justice about his talk.  He presumably enjoys the exercise of speech, and it seems to me strange that it should not occur to him that others may like it too, and that he should not concede a certain opportunity to others to have their say, if only in the interests of fair play.  It is as though a gourmet’s satisfaction in a good dinner were not complete unless he could prevent every one else from partaking of the food before them.

What is really most needed in social gatherings is a kind of moderator of the talk, an informal president.  Many people, as I have said, are quite capable of talking interestingly, if they get a lead.  The perfect moderator should have a large stock of subjects of general interest.  He should, so to speak, kick-off.  And then he should either feel, or at least artfully simulate, an interest in other people’s point of view.  He should ask questions, reply to arguments, encourage, elicit expressions of opinion.  He should not desire to steer his own course, but follow the line that the talk happens to take.  If he aims at the reputation of being a good talker, he will win a far higher fame by pursuing this course; for it is a lamentable fact that, after a lively talk, one is apt to remember far better what one has oneself contributed to the discussion than what other people have said; and if you can send guests away from a gathering feeling that they have talked well, they will be disposed in that genial mood to concede conversational merit to the other participators.  A naïve and simple-minded friend of my own once cast an extraordinary light on the subject, by saying to me, the day after an agreeable symposium at my own house, “We had a very pleasant evening with you yesterday.  I was in great form”!

The only two kinds of talker that I find tiresome are the talker of paradoxes and the egotist.  A few paradoxes are all very well; they are stimulating and gently provocative.  But one gets tired of a string of them; they become little more than a sort of fence erected round a man’s mind; one despairs of ever knowing what a paradoxical talker really thinks.  Half the charm of good talk consists in the glimpses and peeps one gets into the stuff of a man’s thoughts; and it is wearisome to feel that a talker is for ever tossing subjects on his horns, perpetually trying to say the unexpected, the startling thing.  In the best talk of all, a glade suddenly opens up, like the glades in the Alpine forests through which they bring the timber down to the valley; one sees a long green vista, all bathed in shimmering sunshine, with the dark head of a mountain at the top.  So in the best talk one has a sudden sight of something high, sweet, serious, austere.

The other kind of talk that I find very disagreeable is the talk of a full-fledged egotist, who converses without reference to his hearers, and brings out what is in his mind.  One gets interesting things in this way from time to time; but the essence, as I have said, of good talk is that one should have provoking and stimulating peeps into other minds, not that one should be compelled to gaze and stare into them.  I have a friend, or rather an acquaintance, whose talk is just as if he opened a trap-door into his mind:  you look into a dark place where something flows, stream or sewer; sometimes it runs clear and brisk, but at other times it seems to be charged with dirt and debris; and yet there is no escape; you have to stand and look, to breathe the very odours of the mind, until he chooses to close the door.

The mistake that many earnest and persevering talkers make is to suppose that to be engrossed is the same thing as being engrossing.  It is true of conversation as of many other things, that the half is better than the whole.  People who are fond of talking ought to beware of being lengthy.  How one knows the despair of conversing with a man who is determined to make a clear and complete statement of everything, and not to let his hearer off anything!  Arguments, questions, views, rise in the mind in the course of the harangue, and are swept away by the moving stream.  Such talkers suffer from a complacent feeling that their information is correct and complete, and that their deductions are necessarily sound.  But it is quite possible to form and hold a strong opinion, and yet to realize that it is after all only one point of view, and that there is probably much to be said on the other side.  The unhappiest feature of drifting into a habit of positive and continuous talk is that one has few friends faithful enough to criticise such a habit and tell one the unvarnished truth; if the habit is once confirmed, it becomes almost impossible to break it off.  I know of a family conclave that was once summoned, in order, if possible, to communicate the fact to one of the circle that he was in danger of becoming a bore; the head of the family was finally deputed to convey the fact as delicately as possible to the erring brother.  He did so, with much tender circumlocution.  The offender was deeply mortified, but endeavoured to thank his elderly relative for discharging so painful a task.  He promised amendment.  He sate glum and tongue-tied for several weeks in the midst of cheerful gatherings.  Very gradually the old habit prevailed.  Within six months he was as tedious as ever; but what is the saddest part of the whole business is that he has never quite forgiven the teller of the unwelcome news, while at the same time he labours under the impression that he has cured himself of the habit.

It is, of course, useless to attempt to make oneself into a brilliant talker, because the qualities needed - humour, quickness, the power of seeing unexpected connections, picturesque phrasing, natural charm, sympathy, readiness, and so forth - are things hardly attainable by effort.  But much can be done by perseverance; and it is possible to form a deliberate habit of conversation by determining that however much one may be indisposed to talk, however unpromising one’s companions may seem, one will at all events keep up an end.  I have known really shy and unready persons who from a sheer sense of duty have made themselves into very tolerable talkers.  A friend of my acquaintance confesses that a device she has occasionally employed is to think of subjects in alphabetical order.  I could not practise this device myself, because when I had lighted upon, we will say, algebra, archery, and astigmatism, as possible subjects for talk, I should find it impossible to invent any gambit by which they could be successfully introduced.

The only recipe which I would offer to a student of the art is not to be afraid of apparent egotism, but to talk frankly of any subject in which he may be interested, from a personal point of view.  An impersonal talker is apt to be a dull dog.  There is nothing like a frank expression of personal views to elicit an equally frank expression of divergence or agreement.  Neither is it well to despise the day of small things; the weather, railway travelling, symptoms of illness, visits to a dentist, sea-sickness, as representing the universal experiences and interests of humanity, will often serve as points d’appui.

Of course there come to all people horrible tongue-tied moments when they can think of nothing to say, and, feel like a walrus on an ice-floe, heavy, melancholy, ineffective.  Such a catastrophe is almost invariably precipitated in my own case by being told that some one is particularly anxious to be introduced to me.  A philosopher of my acquaintance, who was an admirable talker, told me that on a certain occasion, an evening party, his hostess led up a young girl to him, like Iphigenia decked for the sacrifice, and said that Miss - was desirous of meeting him.  The world became instantly a blank to him.  The enthusiastic damsel stared at him with large admiring eyes.  After a period of agonized silence, a remark occurred to him which he felt might have been appropriate if it had been made earlier in the encounter.  He rejected it as useless, and after another interval a thought came to him which he saw might have served, if the suspense had not been already so prolonged; this was also put aside; and after a series of belated remarks had occurred to him, each of which seemed to be hopelessly unworthy of the expectation he had excited, the hostess, seeing that things had gone wrong, came, like Artemis, and led Iphigenia away, without the philosopher having had the opportunity of indulging in a single reflection.  The experience, he said, was of so appalling a character, that he set to, and invented a remark which he said was applicable to persons of all ages and of either sex, under any circumstances whatever; but, as he would never reveal this precious possession to the most ardent inquirers, the secret, whatever it was, has perished with him.

One of my friends has a perfectly unique gift of conversation.  He is a prominent man of affairs, a perfect mine of political secrets.  He is a ready talker, and has the art, both in a tete-a-tete as well as in a mixed company, of mentioning things which are extremely interesting, and appear to be hopelessly indiscreet.  He generally accompanies his relation of these incidents with a request that the subject may not be mentioned outside.  The result is that every one who is brought into contact with him feels that he is selected by the great man because of some happy gift of temperament, trustworthiness, or discretion, or even on grounds of personal importance, to be the recipient of this signal mark of confidence.  On one occasion I endeavoured, after one of these conversations, not for the sake of betraying him, but in the interests of a diary which I keep, to formulate in precise and permanent terms some of this interesting intelligence.  To my intense surprise and disappointment, I found myself entirely unable to recollect, much less to express, any of his statements.  They had melted in the mind, like some delicate confection, and left behind them nothing but a faint aroma of interest and pleasure.

This would be a dangerous example to imitate, because it requires a very subtle species of art to select incidents and episodes which should both gratify the hearers, and which at the same time it should be impossible to hand on.  Most people who attempted such a task would sink into being miserable blabbers of tacenda, mere sieves through which matters of secret importance would granulate into the hands of ardent journalists.  But at once to stimulate and gratify curiosity, and to give a quiet circle the sense of being admitted to the inmost penetralia of affairs, is a triumph of conversational art.

Dr. Johnson used to say that he loved to stretch his legs and have his talk out; and the fact remains that the best conversation one gets is the conversation that one does not scheme for, and even on occasions from which one has expected but little.  The talks that remain in my mind as of pre-eminent interest are long leisurely tete-a-tete talks, oftenest perhaps of all in the course of a walk, when exercise sends the blood coursing through the brain, when a pleasant countryside tunes the spirit to a serene harmony of mood, and when the mind, stimulated into a joyful readiness by association with some quiet, just, and perceptive companion, visits its dusty warehouse, and turns over its fantastic stores.  Then is the time to penetrate into the inmost labyrinths of a subject, to indulge in pleasing discursiveness, as the fancy leads one, and yet to return again and again with renewed relish to the central theme.  Such talks as these, with no overshadowing anxiety upon the mind, held on breezy uplands or in pleasant country lanes, make the moments, indeed, to which the mind, in the sad mood which remembers the days that are gone, turns with that sorrowful desolation of which Dante speaks, as to a treasure lightly spent and ungratefully regarded.  How such hours rise up before the mind!  Even now as I write I think of such a scene, when I walked with a friend, long dead, on the broad yellow sands beside a western sea.  I can recall the sharp hiss of the shoreward wind, the wholesome savours of the brine, the soft clap of small waves, the sand-dunes behind the shore, pricked with green tufts of grass, the ships moving slowly on the sea’s rim, and the shadowy headland to which we hardly seemed to draw more near, while we spoke of all that was in our hearts, and all that we meant to do and be.  That day was a great gift from God; and yet, as I received it, I did not know how fair a jewel of memory it would be.  I like to think that there are many such jewels of recollection clasped close in the heart’s casket, even in the minds of men and women that I meet, that seem so commonplace to me, so interesting to themselves!

It is strange, in reflecting about the memorable talks I have held with different people, to find that I remember best the talks that I have had with men, rather than with women.  There is a kind of simple openness, an equal comradeship in talks with men, which I find it difficult to attain in the case of women.  I suppose that some unsuspected mystery of sex creeps in, and that with women there is a whole range of experiences and emotions that one does not share, so that there is an invisible and intangible barrier erected between the two minds.  I feel, too, in talking with women, that I am met with almost too much sympathy and tact, so that one falls into an egotistical mood.  It is difficult, too, I find, to be as frank in talking with women as with men; because I think that women tend more than men to hold a preconceived idea of one’s character and tastes; and it is difficult to talk simply and naturally to any one who has formed a mental picture of one, especially if one is aware that it is not correct.  But men are slower to form impressions, and thus talk is more experimental; moreover, in talking with men, one encounters more opposition, and opposition puts one more on one’s mettle.

Thus a tete-a-tete with a man of similar tastes, who is just and yet sympathetic, critical yet appreciative, whose point of view just differs enough to make it possible for him to throw sidelights on a subject, and to illumine aspects of it that were unperceived and neglected - this is a high intellectual pleasure, a potion to be delicately sipped at leisure.

But after all it is impossible to say what makes a conversationalist.  There are people who seem to possess every qualification for conversing except the power to converse.  The two absolutely essential things are, in the first place, a certain charm of mind and even manner, which is a purely instinctive gift; and, in the second place, real sympathy with, real interest in the deuteragonist.

People can be useful talkers, even interesting talkers, without these gifts.  One may like to hear what a man of vigorous mind may have to say on a subject that he knows well, even if he is unsympathetic.  But then one listens in a receptive frame of mind, as though one were prepared to attend a lecture.  There are plenty of useful talkers at a University, men whom it is a pleasure to meet occasionally, men with whom one tries, so to speak, a variety of conversational flies, and who will give one fine sport when they are fairly hooked.  But though a University is a place where one ought to expect to find abundance of the best talk, the want of leisure among the present generation of Dons is a serious bar to interesting talk.  By the evening the majority of Dons are apt to be tired.  They have been hard at work most of the day, and they look upon the sociable evening hours as a time to be given up to what the Scotch call “daffing”; that is to say, a sort of nimble interchange of humorous or interesting gossip; a man who pursues a subject intently is apt to be thought a bore.  I think that the middle-aged Don is apt to be less interesting than either the elderly or the youthful Don.  The middle-aged Don is, like all successful professional men, full to the brim of affairs.  He has little time for general reading.  He lectures, he attends meetings, his table is covered with papers, and his leisure hours are full of interviews.  But the younger Don is generally less occupied and more enthusiastic; and best of all is the elderly Don, who is beginning to take things more easily, has a knowledge of men, a philosophy and a good-humoured tolerance which makes him more accessible.  He is not in a hurry, he is not preoccupied.  He studies the daily papers with deliberation, and he has just enough duties to make him feel wholesomely busy.  His ambitions are things of the past, and he is gratified by attention and deference.

I suppose the same is the case, in a certain degree, all the world over.  But the truth about conversation is that, to make anything of it, people must realize it as a definite mental occupation, and not merely a dribbling into words of casual thoughts.  To do it well implies a certain deliberate intention, a certain unselfishness, a certain zest.  The difficulty is that it demands a catholicity of interests, a full mind.  Yet it does not do to have a subject on the brain, and to introduce it into all companies.  The pity is that conversation is not more recognized as a definite accomplishment.  People who care about the success of social gatherings are apt to invite an instrumentalist or a singer, or a man with what may be called parlour tricks; but few people are equally careful to plant out two or three conversationalists among their parties, or to take care that their conversationalists are provided with a sympathetic background.

For the fact remains that conversation is a real art, and depends like all other arts upon congenial circumstances and suitable surroundings.  People are too apt to believe that, because they have interests in their minds and can put those interests into words, they are equipped for the pretty and delicate game of talk.  But a rare admixture of qualities is needed, and a subtle conversational effect, a sudden fancy, that throws a charming or a bizarre light on a subject, a power of pleasing metaphorical expression, the communication of an imaginative interest to a familiar topic - all these things are of the nature of instinctive art.  I have heard well-informed and sensible people talk of a subject in a way that made me feel that I desired never to hear it mentioned again; but I have heard, on the other hand, people talk of matters which I had believed to be worn threadbare by use, and yet communicate a rich colour, a fragrant sentiment to them, which made me feel that I had never thought adequately on the topic before.  One should be careful, I think, to express to such persons one’s appreciation and admiration of their gifts, for the art is so rare that we ought to welcome it when we find it; and, like all arts, it depends to a great extent for its sustenance on the avowed gratitude of those who enjoy it.  It is on these subtle half-toned glimpses of personality and difference that most of our happy impressions of life depend; and no one can afford wilfully to neglect sources of innocent joy, or to lose opportunities of pleasure through a stupid or brutal contempt for the slender resources out of which these gentle effects are produced.