Reading Outloud

the urges stem i think from i. doesn't bristol have a poetry scene worth inculcating that there are, you know, living people who might read their own work, and be alive in person vs. ii. this is actually a kind of nice effort to educate people, and it's snooty of me to assume that there aren't people who don't already know all about t.s. eliot

and i guess further objections to i. can be made along the lines of a. actually, getting people to actually listen to these poems might do more to make them go and think about poetry / poetry of their own, than would listening to some not-great poetry by someone happens to be there b. er something about deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence, i'll get back to you

theres a really great video of frank o'hara reading 'having a coke with you' on youtube from the mid 60s, its shot very close on his face and hes holding a lit cigarette, he reads the poem in this intense breathless rush, almost bored and maybe embarrassed, and it made me really love the poem in a way i dont think i would just reading it? idk

partly because of my love for you, partly because of your love for yogurt

i hadn't seen that clip before / had forgotten about that poem so huh. i o'hara used to be my favorite poet / was my first 'favorite poet' -- i got the massive disorganised collected poems and made myself like him less struggling with it

i find it hard, in general, to raise much enthusiasm for readings and similar penumbral acts. like a lot of what i get out of reading (-s) involves not being in a room with other people and engaging with something in a way that's not as ... err, chronology-bound, space-bound (urgh) -- also why i prefer books to tv -- tho a lot of this is still the kid in me who is really proud of being able to read really quickly, which is something i need to train myself out of on two levels

http://www.typomag.com/burningchair/uploaded_images/fj6-725461.jpg

http://vimeo.com/63713414

stephanie young reading from her new book

i don't think she's at all exceptional in the mediocre quality of her reading. but why? why are writers who give 'readings' like they are? like, zero conception of the oral as distinct from the page. of the performance as distinct from the public (the talk, the announcement).

Writing and giving a vocal performance are definitely separate talents. Sure, a few authors are multi-talented and interpret their own works wonderfully well, but the combination is rare. Authors do it because it gives them publicity and exposes their work (and because their publishers insist on it). People go to readings because they want to be in the same room with an author they admire (and because it's generally free admission).

surely one can learn "vocal performance" without forgetting how to write.

Aimless. have you never had an englisb teacher who was a proficient "vocal performer"?

i took a creative writing class that was taught by someone with a side job as a professional reader. he read all of salinger's 'for esme with love and squalor' for us one class, some of the best reading i've ever heard.

what the heck, there's no magic beans to reading one's own writing or whatever. this is all just a general discomfort w/ public speaking

well they should get better at it over time, then!

or not read their own work, have a little self-respect

I consider myself to be an above average reader-aloud. I was a drama geek in high school and have even written a few speeches for local politicians. But being an English teacher is not the same as being "a writer".

My dad was an English teacher and a pretty good vocal performer (he especially was drawn to Robert Service). He also wrote and could spin off a decent limerick or anecdote, but his writing never rose to a level much above general proficiency. He never had the luxury of studying the art of writing in great depth or detail. My maternal grandfather was the head of a university literature department, but he had a tin ear and his writing constantly trended toward turgidity. I've got a boxful of it in the basement to bear witness.

Real writing talent, fully-developed, is plenty rare on its own. It takes massive numbers of hours to polish and perfect. Learning how to use dramatic flair and timing in front of an audience also takes dedication and practice. Most writers never get around to learning both. Just how it happens.

they should get better at it over time

That only works if they want to get better and pay sufficient attention to the craft. If readings are just a nuisance they put up with or just a fun lark that will always be secondary to writing, they'll never improve.

I don't take the words in if I read aloud and therefore I have trouble intonating properly.

http://www.ubu.com/papers/byrne_poetry_standup.pdf

good shit!

http://www.cityartsonline.com/articles/stop-using-poet-voice

^ from ned from skot from who knows where

Yes, yes. omg yes.

I get the irritation, but what I think that article misses is that "poet voice" is not just an affectation, but much more deeply ingrained: it has become the voice poets hear inside their heads as they write their poems. Even the Muse clears her throat these days.

I write poetry. I refuse to use the 'poet voice' when I read my poems aloud and I damn well don't hear it in my head as I write them. I've long thought the 'poet voice' was an abomination. It is perpetuated by poets who don't write in a voice so much as a style or a manner.

This is one crude generalization I don't mind being chided about, Aimless, my apologies for the broad brush.