(1) What has happened to the art of conversation. By conversation I am not thinking merely of words between individuals. I am thinking of one of the highest manifestation of the use of human intelligence—the ability to transform abstractions into language; the ability to convey images from one mind to another; the ability to build a mutual edifice of ideas. In short, the ability to engage in a civilizing experience. (2) But where does one find good conversation these days? Certainly not in the presence of the television set, which consumes half the average American’s non-sleeping, nonworking hours. Much of the remaining free time is given to games. No matter how rewarding “bridge talk” may be, it is not conversation. Neither is chatter. (3) What makes good conversation? In the first place, it is essentially a mutual search for the essence of things. It is a zestful transaction, not a briefing or a lecture. Pushkin correctly identified the willingness to listen as one of the vital ingredients of any exchange. When two people are talking at the same time, the result is not conversation but a collision of decibels. (4) Nothing is more destructive of good talk than for one participant to hold the ball too long, like an overzealous basketball dribbler playing to the gallery and keeping it away from everyone else. Pity the husband or wife with a garrulous mate who insists on talking long past the point where he or she has anything to say. (5) To be meaningful, a conversation should head in a general direction. It need not to be artfully plotted to arrive at a predetermined point, but it should be gratefully kept on course—guided by many unforeseen ideas. (6) It has been said that if speech is silver, silence is golden. Certainly silence is preferable, under most circumstances, to inconsequential chitchat. Why is it then that so many people, when they are with others, are discomfited by the absence of human sound waves. Why are they not willing merely to sit with each other, silently enjoying the unheard but real linkages of congeniality and understanding? Why aren’t people content to contemplate a lovely scene or read together in silence? “Made conversation” should not be a necessity among intimates. They know whether the weather is good or bad; are as well or poorly informed about current events. If there is nothing to say—don’t say it. (7) It is true that strangers meeting for the first time seem to feel uncomfortable if they do not engage in small talk to relieve their mutual awkwardness. This is the scourge of the cocktail party, but is necessary if strangers are to size each other up. Usually, however, this is harmless. In desperation one seeks an artificial gambit. I remember one from an English girl: “Oh, I say, are you frightfully keen on cats and dogs?” Unfortunately I wasn’t. (8) There is disease shared by many, particularly with new acquaintances, that leads to “dropping names” or “colleges”. This is often a useful device, since a common friend or university experience can be a helpful point of departure for conversation leading to better understanding. It is, however, more often woefully abused as a means of showing off... (9) Genealogical topics should also be avoided. The danger of boring one’s conversation partner and of becoming self-serving is far too great. In the first place, others don’t really care about your ancestors. They know, as you should, that everyone has quite a variety ranging all the way from bums to princes. If one goes back 8 generations, one has 256 forebears. How easy to pick out the one who glitters most as your claim to fame! Even the one who gave you your name is still only one in 256. (10) Cocktail-party necessities aside, however, some elementary rules for conversation are well worth our consideration. In the first place, certain subjects should be taboo in any general conversation. Kitchen topics—the best cleansers, recipes, and troubles with servants—should certainly be limited to interested women. Straight man talk, such as business, golf, and hunting exploits, may be permissible in board or locker rooms but should be taboo in general discussion, along with bus schedules and all other dull or specialized things. One does not mention precise figures descriptive of one’s wealth or income—not even an artful "The idea netted me something in six figures." The first digit was probably 1. (11) People even forget, I’m afraid, that their illness and operations should be outlawed as conversational topics. Only if some relative asks you on a need to know basis, or a doctor is interested from a professional standpoint, should you ever volunteer anything about your ailments. Everyone understands this; yet it never seems to apply to you. Remember, even if it’s the most dramatic operation ever performed, it is not something to be offered gratuitously to friends at conversation time. They really don’t want to hear about it. (12) There is also the conversationalist who must under every circumstance be right — who always has to win the game. There are those of us who want to moralize. There is the intruder into emotional subjects like religion or personalities, the malicious gossip. All should be inadmissible by any rules of good conversation. Vulgar words, even the four letter words, can sometimes be effective—as in the English use of bloody. More often, however, they are in bad tastes—particularly when they conjure up a revolting image at mealtime. Shouldn’t there be some law against sonic pollution.