Journalist Spicer may have a point: speaking without notes does make the speaker appear more expert and facilitate interaction with the audience. (Can everyone stand up confidently ""noteless,"" though, by the mere application of ""hope"" over ""fear""?) In any case, this little tell-how effort is so plan- and sub-plan-heavy that the average reader is most likely to come away confused. After detours into Cartesian, Hegelian, and Aristotelian thought-systems (each composed, we're told, of three elements), Spicer recommends approaching a topic with the aim of simplifying, illuminating (with images), and advancing the theme. The best plan may be chronological (for political events); logical (x number of causes for war, say); analytical; dialectical; or ""concentric."" (""Here the idea is to build a forward-driving tension into a very photogenic pattern of expanding circles. . . ."") A chapter tells how to divide each plan into further sub-sections; no set number of these is insisted upon. Drills repeat the core theme/plan/subsection motif, urging you to practice for speed. We are allowed to write out our main headings, opening and closing, on the same day: eventually, it's promised, we'll forgo even that crutch. Some more general tips include using humor profitably, ending on a peak, exploiting your own slips, etc. A shotgun wedding of Cartesian thought and teleprompter effect--for real pluggers.