Abstract
The current generation of scholars often use words such as ‘diversity’ and ‘dialogue’ to emphasise the importance of new and different perspectives in their work. Concurrently, many (though by no means all) historians give lengthy presentations at conferences, leaving precious little time in the question period for the dialogue that they claim to value. This apparent contradiction, in turn, has inspired a humble discourse on the merits of brevity in conference papers, leaving more time for discussion.