A few times, I've heard memorised poetry performed. I must say, this usually
makes me somewhat uneasy -- it tends to lead performance towards declamation
if it's not very carefully handled.
This is not the same, I would stress, as giving a reading and finding part
way through that you've been doing occasional bits from memory.
Didn't we have a thread somewhat along these lines, some time ago? It's
still interesting.
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Prince" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Poem/Play (was Re: Pinter on Blair et al.)
Love this thread comparing and contrasting poetry and drama, so I'll add a
bit and hope to hear more of your thoughts, Roger.
Simple poetry/drama similarities are their words' Feel (like tastes and
textures in one's mouth) and their Sound (a music we can count and measure).
Then a couple differences came to me, riffed off what you wrote (though,
reasonably, you may wonder how I got there from your words): poetry's more
sight-dependent than drama. Now . . . someone somewhere who reads that
Should say, "DUH, of course"--- OF COURSE poetry, like any
unperform-intended genre, needs strong visual stuff. Mite this be the
"body" Alison mentions??
And aiming at another obvious difference between poems and plays: try to
bring back an actor's words, re-feel or re-sound them, play with them,
argue with them. Unless you've memorized the words, you cannot. In what
ways does that demand that plays differ from poems? And how do these two
differences raise the variables of performed poetry's successes or failures?
If you wish to wade there, Roger, great---my emo-brain's urging me toward a
bowl of "Tom and Jerry's" ice cream! Yippy!
Chirs,
Judy
|