Hi Billy,
Sorry if ~I'm giving the wrong signals. I'm distinctly not proposing reading
as either fetishized through sight nor through sound. Both and more are
present surely - even in supposed silence? I was concerned that reading
was not being proposed as being only seen?
People shouldn't read to get some small reumeneration for their work if they
don't feel that such versions are an alive part of their work. I feel this
pretty strongly, whoever they are. If they're not any good at it and don't
really approve of readings but do them to get small beer then that's very
sad and damaging to poetry. I don't mean reading stuff out to one's friends
and peers in an informal gathering, I mean an advertised event. Puts
everybody - poisons the cake.
Arts Council etc published guidelines for either poetry event appearances or
for publication should be both in operation, but quite frankly neither one
nor the other nor both is going to go a tad's way in the direction of paying
someone a living. Arguably could do, arguably should do (that's a big wormy
broth), but won't under current or foreseeable circumstances.
However it would be interesting to note the current rise of storytelling as
a medium through which livings are being earned.
[ok ok I know there are poets who'll only start a conversation about a gig
if one's talking at least £500, but that's not really the ballgame we're
discussing surely]
I still maintain that a poet's presence is traced on a page in a book. To
pretend otherwise is not a choice it is a denial. I'm not disagreeing a
difference between presence and absence, although one partly inscribes the
other. Whatever the choice in respect to 'live' events, presence of author
is still traced in print.
I'll answer some of the drift on new media under a separate heading.
love and love
cris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|