That’s an excellent idea. I mean, I can’t really fault the guy’s credentials. He teaches Shakespeare and Dramatic Literature, was an associate director at San Diego’s Old Globe Theatre for ten years, and according to his most recent bio, he’s had “a 32 year professional theatre career, directing more than 70 productions” nationwide. So I imagine even in 1984 he was familiar with the language and how to pronounce it.
But there are other variables, too. His mic might have been too hot, or he might have been too close to it… I mean, it’s a spelling bee for 13-year-olds, right? How much thought goes into the ideal acoustic reproduction for the kids on stage to hear what the judges say? Having more than one “pronunciator” would be a big help. I wouldn’t say the existing system is particularly unfair (after all, Ms Dublin heard what he said perfectly, though he pronounced it exactly the same), but it would, I think, help prevent cases like mine where the kid doesn’t misspell the word because he doesn’t know it, but because he had trouble hearing it.
For what it’s worth, there’s a perfectly good chance that had I spelled “writhingly” correct, Ms Dublin would have gotten “pirouette” correct, and then I would have been asked to spell “feuilleton” or some similar impossibility. Or I might have made a boneheaded mistake, like being asked to spell “vivisepulture” and in my excitement at getting such a cool word, I’d have gone ahead and spelled it “vivisepulchre.”
