Writing for the Eye Vs. Writing for the Ear

Yesterday, I sat down in the quiet section of the library to begin a 30 page reading assignment from the book El Camino for my Hispanic literature class. One passage read as follows,
                                Daniel, el Mochuelo, tenia como un fuego muy vivo en la cabeza, una mezcla
                                rara de orgullo herido, vanidad despierta y desperacion. <adelante--se decia--/adelante--se>
                                Nadie sera capaz de hacer lo que tu hagas.>>
With my limited knowledge of the spanish language, this passage would almost have been impossible for me to understand had it not been writen down. Because it was written, however, I had the luxury of studying the words as many times as needed. I was also able to look up individual words in a spanish translator, which aided my understanding of the entire passage. Thanks to the written word, I learned that Daniel felt a mixture of pride, vanity, and desperation, he was told that nobody would be able to do what he could do.

Speech writing doesn't have the luxury of dictionaries and multiple glances at a message. Words written to be heard must be conscise. They must be specific and get directly to the point. "Fluff" has no place in a speech, and rarely in written work. Vocabulary should not be so difficult that a person feels he needs his dictionary in hand. People don't want to feel that they are listening to a speech given in Spanish or some other foreign language.

When it comes to speeches, Henry David Thoreau's advice works best: "Simplify, simplify, simplyfy."