zlacker

>>tagoll+(OP)
This is an observation that goes back to at least Cicero.[1]

Cicero on the primary goal of oratory:

"As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them..."

Cicero describes the problem the OP reports:

"But let us return to Calvus whom we have just mentioned,—an Orator who had received more literary improvements than Curio, and had a more accurate and delicate manner of speaking, which he conducted with great taste and elegance; but, (by being too minute and nice a critic upon himself,) while he was labouring to correct and refine his language, he suffered all the force and spirit of it to evaporate. In short, it was so exquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but it was little noticed by the common people in a crowded Forum, which is the proper theatre of Eloquence."

Nuanced communication not working at scale, 2100 years ago.

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9776/pg9776-images.html

>>Animat+6M
The reference book here is a collection of dialogs made by Cicero where he argues that there are two types of oratory: the short, "elegant", straight to the point one and the profuse, "appealing", heart touching one. Cicero himself says (in that book) he is in favor the latter. The book is not about nuance, but rather discourse style. In his (Cicero's) view, the better oratory style is the one that touches the audience as opposed to carefully chosen words. Based on the book, IMO, Cicero is more focused on arguing in favor of passionate speeches than nuance per se.

PS. I believe the quotes used are a bit misleading because they are used as counterexamples in the original text.