The Reading of Papers at Historical Meetings

By Donald W. Whisenhunt

For a number of years, I have witnessed a behavior pattern of professional historians that disturbs me. Recently, I attended two professional meetings where I listened to a number of well-prepared papers. They were presented by both new and established historians. Once again I was reminded of an occurrence that is far too common.

How many times have we attended sessions at historical meetings and heard papers that were too long? How many times have we observed paper presenters gradually increasing their reading speed because it became clear they could not finish in the allotted time? How many times have we heard the speed increase so much that the audience could not follow? How many times were the speakers reading so quickly that they faltered and stumbled? How many times have we seen speakers frantically marking their papers just before speaking, suddenly having realized the paper was too long? How many times have we heard people comment at the beginning of or during the presentations about time restraints and how they were cutting (or would cut, if needed) sections of their papers?

Any one of these situations makes the reader of a paper appear unprepared or unprofessional. It implies a certain degree of inexperience or naivete. In most instances, these impressions are totally inaccurate, but they do reflect poorly on the historian involved. This malady is not limited to the beginning practitioner; it seems to affect historians of all degrees of experience. This type of frustration or embarrassment is totally unnecessary; the solution to the problem is quite simple.

Some years ago, a graduate school professor of mine, Ernest Wallace, gave me a suggestion about the delivery of professional papers for which I have been grateful more times than I can remember. His suggestion has proven infallible in my more than twenty years in the profession; the advice is so simple that most people probably never think of it.

Wallace said there is a rule of thumb to follow in preparing papers for oral delivery. The reading time for a standard manuscript page is two minutes. That is really all there is to it. For ninety percent of historians, a double-spaced page will take two minutes to read. Having given fifteen to twenty papers at professional meetings over the past twenty years, and having followed Wallace's dictum rigidly, I have found my presentations will not vary more than thirty seconds one way or the other. As the sponsor of my first professional presentation, Wallace insisted that my paper not exceed ten pages. When I read the paper, my wife timed it at nineteen minutes and fifty seconds. I prepare the final reading copies of my papers to follow his rule precisely because it has been proven so accurate.

When I prepare a paper for oral presentation, I write it as thoroughly as I can and include as much material as seems appropriate to the topic. Invariably, my paper in this form is far too long for the reading time. When the paper is complete and polished the way I want it, that is the version I will submit for publication. I then take this version and edit it to the proper length. I remove portions that may seem irrelevant to the listener and eliminate unnecessary detail. I avoid including long quotations in the reading version. Long quotations are particularly deadly because they are difficult for the listener to follow. Single-spaced quotations violate the basic rule. If they are to be included in the reading version, they should be typed in the usual double-spaced format so the length of the paper can be judged fairly.

It is painful to cut one's writing, but, as we all know, the more editing and review a paper has, the tighter it is and the better it will be understood. On one or two occasions I have decided the reading version was better than the original and have submitted it for publication.

This process of editing a paper to the appropriate reading length is so much easier today than it was only a few years ago. With the advent of the word processor, the historian can produce many different versions without laboriously retyping. Revisions are no longer the drudgery they once were. [Ed. note: For an introduction to the topic, see Richard Jensen's "Historians and Computers: Word Processing," OAH Newsletter, 11, 2: l5-l6.]

Historians who exceed the time limit for reading a paper seem to fall into one or more of the following groups. Some scholars seem to believe their words are so important that no change can be made. That is nothing more than the ego at work. Any paper can be improved with good editing. Some historians overestimate their abilities. They think they can read faster than two minutes per page. (Some can read faster, but not very many.) In sessions I chaired, I have had experienced historians get angry with me when I suggested they cut their papers by several pages. They claimed they were fast readers who could cover more pages than the average person. I have seen these same people become frustrated as they read, particularly since I am inclined to be a rigid taskmaster about reading time in a session. Since I usually cut people off when they reach the time limit, they are disappointed at not finishing a paper they worked on long and hard. I have also known historians who get angry—almost belligerent—because they think the twenty to thirty minutes slated for the reading of a paper is inadequate.

I believe we must abide by the rules of the meeting in which we are participating—for the sake of courtesy, if nothing else. Furthermore, when listening to the reading of a formal paper, the attention span of the audience certainly does not exceed thirty minutes—if it is that long. This is true even of people who are fascinated by the subject of the paper.

These comments are meant to be helpful—not combative. They are simply my reflections after having attended many historical meetings. Anyone preparing to read a paper at a historical convention might benefit from Wallace's formula. The frustration of trying to read a paper that is too long will be eliminated, and the audience will appreciate the brevity.

(Donald W. Whisenhunt is professor of history and vice president at Wayne State College in Nebraska. His most recent books include Texas: A Sesquicentennial Celebration and On Polar Trails: The Peary Expedition to the North Pole, 1908-1909.)

(The above essay is reproduced from the Organization of American Historians Newsletter, February 1985, p. 18.

Home Page HIST 489