Comments on: Stand-Up Poetry http://www.timothy-green.org/blog/2009/09/stand-up-poetry/ Poetry Editor and Struggling Poet Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:38:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kevin http://www.timothy-green.org/blog/2009/09/stand-up-poetry/#comment-736 Kevin Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:20:18 +0000 http://timothy-green.org/blog/?p=1047#comment-736 It's true that if I know the poet and love his or her work, I'm probably going to enjoy the reading. But I'll never forget the first and (sadly) only time I saw Michael Donaghy read. It was at the West Chester conference, and all day there was a buzz about this guy. I hadn't read a stitch of his poetry beforehand. But I was blown away. He recited his poetry, most of which was dramatic monologues in the tradition of Browning. As anyone will tell you, he had a great flair for performance that probably came from his other life as a musician. His poems are anything but one dimensional, which makes his success at performing them all the more amazing. The bottom line to the whole problem of readings, I think, lies in the reader/performer (whether or not they have a knack for presenting their work) and how the poem is meant to be enjoyed. Who's to say we can't write some work for the page, and others for the stage? Why create solely one type of poem? In my opinion. poets like Donaghy strike a perfect balance. B.H. Fairchild and David Mason also come to mind--their work begs to be spoken aloud, but it doesn't lose any of the effects we've come to expect from poetry as it's evolved. It’s true that if I know the poet and love his or her work, I’m probably going to enjoy the reading. But I’ll never forget the first and (sadly) only time I saw Michael Donaghy read. It was at the West Chester conference, and all day there was a buzz about this guy. I hadn’t read a stitch of his poetry beforehand. But I was blown away. He recited his poetry, most of which was dramatic monologues in the tradition of Browning. As anyone will tell you, he had a great flair for performance that probably came from his other life as a musician. His poems are anything but one dimensional, which makes his success at performing them all the more amazing.

The bottom line to the whole problem of readings, I think, lies in the reader/performer (whether or not they have a knack for presenting their work) and how the poem is meant to be enjoyed. Who’s to say we can’t write some work for the page, and others for the stage? Why create solely one type of poem? In my opinion. poets like Donaghy strike a perfect balance. B.H. Fairchild and David Mason also come to mind–their work begs to be spoken aloud, but it doesn’t lose any of the effects we’ve come to expect from poetry as it’s evolved.

]]> By: Tim http://www.timothy-green.org/blog/2009/09/stand-up-poetry/#comment-735 Tim Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:30:06 +0000 http://timothy-green.org/blog/?p=1047#comment-735 Ginsberg was cool, though, he played the guitar... I think it just comes down to stubbornness. You could make poetry interesting on the stage, but you have you actually perform, which for some reason poets think is "getting in the way of the work." Ginsberg was cool, though, he played the guitar…

I think it just comes down to stubbornness. You could make poetry interesting on the stage, but you have you actually perform, which for some reason poets think is “getting in the way of the work.”

]]> By: E. Shaun Russell http://www.timothy-green.org/blog/2009/09/stand-up-poetry/#comment-734 E. Shaun Russell Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:07:24 +0000 http://timothy-green.org/blog/?p=1047#comment-734 Why is poetry such a dud on stage? It's because it's so literal, and so indirect. With music, drama, dance and visual art, there's a level of non-literal interpretation incumbent upon the audience: they're not being <i>read</i> something -- they're being <i>shown</i> something. Poetry doesn't generally <i>involve</i> people in it, nor does it rely upon interpretation in the same way that the other arts do. There's also some level of cult of personality associated with the other arts. The image of a musician, visual artist or even an actor has something romantic associated with it. The image of a poet is, I'm sorry to say, Allen Ginsburg. Take all of these factors together and it's easy to see why you, me and almost everybody else finds poetry readings abhorrent. Why is poetry such a dud on stage? It’s because it’s so literal, and so indirect. With music, drama, dance and visual art, there’s a level of non-literal interpretation incumbent upon the audience: they’re not being read something — they’re being shown something. Poetry doesn’t generally involve people in it, nor does it rely upon interpretation in the same way that the other arts do.

There’s also some level of cult of personality associated with the other arts. The image of a musician, visual artist or even an actor has something romantic associated with it. The image of a poet is, I’m sorry to say, Allen Ginsburg.

Take all of these factors together and it’s easy to see why you, me and almost everybody else finds poetry readings abhorrent.

]]>