One of the most annoying things about poetry is the stereotypical way that most poets read their work in front of an audience. That dry, lifeless tone that makes you think that sharing their words is a private torture. The nonsensical way that they choose to slooow doown certain words...and add random pauses...beforespeedingupwithoutwarning and using unnecessary EMPhasis on random SYLlables...And of course, the ending must not leave the listener with a sense of closure--no matter how final the words seem--but simply fade into nothing...
Where in the world did that kind of performance technique come from? Who made the golden rule that poets need to sound like philosophical jerks in order to come off as "deep"? The conspiracy is deeper than all of us; poets have been reading like this for years. All I know is that these back-door-lounge-room type performances need to stop.
I'm slowly learning that even though listening to a poet read their work aloud let's me hear the intended rhythm, their voice takes away from my personal experience. There has been a quite few times where my poetry professor has played audio from live poetry reading that made me want to bang my head against the desk in pure frustrated disappointment.
Poetry is ruined by pretentious intent.
Not every poet does this; I have heard the few impassioned writers that stir more emotions with their voice than just their words. Sadly, their names escape me because the bad greatly outnumber the great. Those horrible performances still ring in my ears.
I don't read poetry aloud often so I'm not to sure about how I want to do it, but if I have to sound "deep" to sound like a poet, count me out.
No comments:
Post a Comment