I absolutely detest the better-than-thou "you must not read" crap. When I was on the "job market" in 2001/2002, my job talk was a very polished (if not somewhat controversial), performed manuscript. I have a tendency to ramble, so I stick to a script to keep myself "on time" and, well, more precise than I would simply talking. I recall I was horrified when, at Cal State Long Beach, I was standing at the front of the room preparing to talk, and Pat Kearny, an Org Comm scholar, said: "Oh no! You're not going to read to us are you?" "Of course," I replied, "I was trained as a rhetorician. Don't worry, though, I'll be lively." And I was lively. Like Jimmy-B says, I did a performative reading with plenty of gestures and eye-contact. The talk went well. After, however, Pat criticized my talk as we walked to lunch. "I've written a textbook on public speaking," she said, "so I know what I'm talking about. You rhetoricans should be ashamed for reading your work." Well, that's not verbatim, but that was the gist. As a consequence, I decided right then "no thanks, don't want to be here!" (A good decision; at the last evening of the interview Pat patted me on the head--I kid you not--and said, "you seem like a nice young man. Good luck!").

Sorry . . . that anecdote just sorta rolled out. But to make this relevant again: I think having a script is perhaps crucial for some presenters. If it's practiced, you can get it "timed" just right. These days, if I see that I'm the last person on a panel, I literally plan for my paper to be 10 minutes long. Why? Because inevitably some a-hole speaks from talking points and takes 20 minutes. It never fails.

So I'm for spirited reading if I have to chose between that or a "talk": it's just more polite to others in the room!

This ridiculous and often self-righteous argument asserts itself again after almost every Cs. Drives me nuts. We are rhetoricians, so surely we can analyze this situation rhetorically rather than claiming privy to some ultimate truth: sometimes talking is better; sometimes reading is better. It depends on what you're trying to do, on the exigency, which is not always to transmit a piece of info or particular point to the audience with which they can walk out. It's probably a good idea to give a "talk" if you're hoping to communicate the specific results of your research or to make a very specific point--and i have certainly done that, with powerpoint slides, no less. However, if you aim to inspire more theoretical, philosophical, poetic, or pedagogical reflection and/or to spotlight certain performative effects of language, you're probably better off reading a paper.

As Jim notes below, the problem is probably that there are some who just stand up there, without having practiced, and read what's on the page in the most monotoned, boring way possible...inspiring no reflection at all. On the other hand, i've seen some absolutely shitty, unprepared (and frankly embarrassing) "talks" as well. The difference is not about whether a presenter "talks" or "reads"--it's about whether the presenter is engaging or not, whether s/he has prepared or not...etc.

While I heard a few talks that were read in ways that weren't easy to follow (monotonous or too fast or too long), I thought it was great when someone who had a good reading style read. I felt like I enjoyed yours a lot, so thank you for your work! :) Yes, I think valuing a variety of presentation styles is good.

I personally try not to pass judgment on others when it comes to presenting styles. That being said, there's reading and then there's *reading*. If I am going to read a paper - and depending on the content this is often unavoidable - I would at least like to perform that paper. I've seen a lot of conference papers that were read in an interesting way. I've also seen a lot of snoozers.

I would agree that CCCC should welcome compositions, but it might all depend on how we define "composition." Is the verbal performance of a text part of the composition? I think we'd agree that it is, but some are better at (and more comfortable with) the verbal performance than others. To use the word "insidious" seems to ignore the fact that different folks have different styles and strengths when it comes to performance.