Blog Post 2



Innis’s key idea is that oral cultures are time-biased and flexible. This means they live in the voice, in the moment, and are shaped by the audience, not fixed on a page. This helps explain why Grant Mazzys monologue works so well on the radio. It doesn’t build an argument, it moves by sound and association. From a missing cat to a damaged bridge to a series of French puns (Piscine, Culotte, Flaque), with “Pontypool” repeated until it becomes rhythm. Written down the story is insignificant, but when spoken, it makes the listener hooked. This is because it can’t be skimmed or reread, only experienced in real time.

Dave Mickie is the more extreme oral performer. His monologue is built from meaningless syllables, random phrases, and a repeated phone number, so the sound of his voice and the suggestion to call in matter much more than any content. As he brings the oral tradition into the present, he creates a participatory, communal circle, which is the oral tradition at its most responsive.

Mazzy borrows the same techniques but uses them differently. Mickie’s personality pulls people in while Mazzy’s wordplay is cooler and more controlling, drifting away from sense. Both show the power of the spoken word, but Mazzy also shows how that power can disturb as much as it connects.

Comments

  1. Josh HorniakOctober 23, 2026 at 9:37 AM

    Hey!
    I agree with your point that the sound and delivery of Mazzy’s monologue matter more than the story itself. His repetition draws listeners in, even as the words start to lose their meaning. Your comparison with Mickie also shows how the same techniques can create different relationships with an audience. I think radio adds to this effect because listeners have to imagine what they hear, which can make Mazzy’s shift from familiar to unsettling feel even more personal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vanessa DinnallOctober 25, 2026 at 12:55 PM

    I like how you explained the difference between Mazzy and Mickie and how they both use oral communication in different ways. I think it’s interesting how something that seems meaningless when written down can become engaging when spoken aloud. This shows how much tone, rhythm, and the speaker’s delivery can influence how an audience receives a message.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sreehita TuragaOctober 27, 2026 at 12:54 PM

    I found your point about how spoken words can have a different impact compared to written words really interesting. I agree that the way someone speaks, including their tone, rhythm and delivery, can make something more engaging even if the actual message doesn't have much meaning. I also think this connects to how we listen to podcasts or radio today, where sometimes the personality of the speaker is what keeps us interested rather than the actual information being shared. It makes me wonder whether we would find the same content as interesting if we were simply reading it instead of listening to someone say it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stephanie Does Blog Post 1

 Hello everyone! My name is Stephanie. I'm in my fourth year studying communications. As I mentioned in class last week, I LOVE house music and the culture surrounding it. Some of my favourite DJ's are Mau P, Dom Dolla, Fisher, Chris Lake, Disclosure, and many more. I first started listening in my first year, and as time went on, I became addicted to it. From music festivals to the Boiler Rooms, house music is my favourite style of music. Raves in particular are so life-changing no one judges, cares, and everyone is so happy and inclusive. My first ever set I saw live was Fisher, and after that I was hooked,  like an out-of-body euphoric feeling being in the crowd. House music energizes me and just sets my mood. Helps me stay focused when doing work, fires me up to run, and makes me want to dance. At first, people think it's super annoying, but I promise if you give it a shot, you too will love it. I've attached my go-to house music songs in my playlist below feel free ...
Read more