Some, like memoirist Patricia Hampl, praised Obama's plain speaking. "I was glad," she said, "that he denied himself rhetorical flourishes and gave a speech as refined and restrained in its power so that political language itself was restored to its greatest value -- saying what the speaker means."
Historian Mike Davis also praised Obama's restraint, calling it a "brilliantly modulated speech that perfectly showcased Obama's gravitas while revealing as little as possible of his actual passions. Hopefully we can now take a break from patriotic celebrations and incantations of 'hope' and return to rescuing the survivors from the wreckage of the Bush era."
Clinton speechwriter and author Ted Widmer liked the obvious lack of "elaborate, orotund speechwriter language," the "tight language, short sentences and strong images" and the many references to past presidents, although he noted the absence of Lincoln quotes.
Novelist Stacey D'Erasmo had some writerly observations. She was struck by how much Obama looked "like an ordinary man on his way to work, alone. When he looked down during the various opening remarks, he actually looked like he was thinking." She felt she was observing his transformation: "We know that we are watching him become something else, something we can't, entirely, understand. Subtly, we want him to explain it to us: What does his power mean?"
In pre-speech commentary, Ronald Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson (famous for penning the phrase "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall") told a reporter: "Writing is writing. It's a job."
A good inaugural speech, he said, contains expectations while allowing people to fully enjoy the moment.
As many writers will tell you, this is what writing can do: make the complex sound like plain speaking, contain and channel the emotions, create a kind of bridge from the heart to the mind.
"Here's a guy," Carlson said with obvious admiration, "capable of his next idea."
--
susan.reynolds@latimes.com
