Thanks to cris and Karlien for response. I was letting go of my anger a
peaceable ish way but also hoped to spark some kind of a discussion -
something has just killed something out the back, an anguished shriek and a
gasp, hope it wasn't the neighbours...
yeh, some kind of discussion, not necessarily on this... but this'll do and
is important. It probably wasnt useful to try to create *guilt*. People
don't have to turn up. (If people will not hear poetry we shall force them
to hear poetry!)
I want to emphasise the _lack of curiosity_ which are cris's words... i
think that is accurate. Whether it is apathy or not I don't know. Apathy is
not necessarily the same as lack of curiosity and they may not be related.
I am glad that cris puts _circles_ in quotes - i am not sure about it... i
think they may be a variety of crop circles - or something spelled
similarly... but the reference to _A community in tatters_ is spot on.
As we approached the start time on Tuesday it became clear that the
audience was going to be smaller than I would have hoped for and I spoke to
Spencer about that. I quoted Bob Cob's line - Bob was with us - about
people following poets and not poetry and Spencer agreed. And interestingly
given what cris says he said he detected the same thing in usa... He
also sd words like _What does that say about us as a community?_ Spot on.
I don't know about _asleep around old flags_... Maybe. Probably not. It
slips off the tongue, sort of, but I don't think it's all that accurate. Or
maybe to extend the lack of curiosity idea, fear of curiosity - timidity
rather than sleepiness. I say that coming from a TU background in which I
and a couple of others were really hammered for trying to maintain
standards of teaching and a modicum of safety awareness while the rest of
the staff stood by and said there wasnt a problem, knowing there was, the
while complaining about the state of things and how they were desperate to
get out. But they WOULD not be counted.
Cris, whatever you felt in 1979, and I remember your dissatisfactions,
things have changed in many ways. The implication that the same old problem
you identified nearly twenty years ago has not been dealt with and is still
there is... well, not true. Apart from the persistence of Human Nurture.
_Here, people tend to rush for the bar and turn away as the reader
approaches._
I can't say I have seen that at Sub Voicive. Other places I have, yes, and
maybe some people at SVP rush for the bar. Maybe they're thirsty. We have a
short break and they increasingly like to stop serving about 10.40. But
they do NOT turn their back on the reader.
I have differed with cris over his account of _SubVoicive behaviour (sic)_
before. Maybe * was* as he says sometimes, often maybe. Maybe it is
sometimes still - we have many audiences, some who come by with the
frequency of comets. Maybe it has an urge to be as it was or has sometimes
been that he feels and I, insensitive middleaged male that I am, do not.
I suggest, however, that his observation is inaccurate and the conclusions
therefore are suspect. That is the reason I for one object to the _bashing
on_... It is easy to see what you expect to see. And there are problems
with the room. The other major bookers of the room are the masons - now
that maybe my prejudice - but it is fitted up for anything but a poetry
reading. BUT with a bit of furniture removal and a bit of rearranging it
can modified if only slightly. There are benefits too, many of which may
not be apparent to those who participate by being in the audience.
I quite enjoy heading for the bar when I get a chance, always have and
probably always will. And I guess that's a trait of many males, but not
exclusively, poets or not. But I have worked against the closed shop boys
together approach and been - I believe - quite successful.
I have fought against people being shut out, feeling shut out etc. I have
to say that a lot of the data on that has, in the past, come from those who
don't attend very often though not exclusively. SVP has been going for ages
and it's easy to criticise a thing that's been going a long time. You bet
it's got faults; but it doesn't have any old faults you care to name. They
are identifiable and I am working on them. I like to think so anyway.
Smoking is out now. Since this autumn the seating is more plentiful. I
don't think the audience has ever been so well informed as to the
programme. I fight and fight against the reality or the idea that there is
an unfriendly atmosphere. I welcome hearing from anyone who does experience
unfriendliness rather than the stories of someone who knows someone who
told them it's unfriendly. There are of course individuals who are
unfriendly. Not much I can do about that. And they're on the buses and the
trains as well.
The audiences this calendar year have been almost consistently high. As
good as ever certainly over a long period.
The issue cris identifies is not the issue I believe - I don't mean this
aggressively or dismissively cris - but it wont become true because you
keep saying it
When I booked spencer and then added wystan, i wasnt trying to address that
issue which i think is not the issue - i was trying to fit them into an
existing slot and into their schedules as I knew them then... turns out i
had more latitude with wystan's schedule than i had realised... or maybe
his plans changed
I think the reference to them as _a couple of middle-aged male
'out-of-towners'_ is silly though accurate, I suppose, but in this context
not useful or to the point.
On the 23rd Sep we had two middle aged out of towners, Messrs Joris and
Rothenberg. And in August Michael Heller et al. The night of the Mottram
conference we had three middle aged out of towners - Griffiths, Fisher and
MacSweeney. A lot of males but that has just happened: only the Rothenberg
/ Joris reading was planned a long way ahead. Of the other two one was
offered to me and the other was me plugging a failed booking with what I
regard as a golden opportunity.
I go into this detail because I feel it is necessary to answer what seems
to me a response that while undoubtedly well-intentioned is also glib. On
those three occasions, all featuring _names_ of one kind or another, the
room was packed; and the atmosphere did not match the scenario cris offers.
Sorry, cris, as I say I don't mean this in any way but constructively, but
what you say isn't right.
Initially, both Spencer and Wystan were going to work with slides -
eventually wystan decided against that... This was a departure for Spencer,
possibly a development - as it promised and it was in fact. Spencer is
KNOWN in London and I was astonished that people who know and seemingly
like his work did not turn out to see what he was up to.
And the opportunity to hear a poet that possibly none of us - the community
manque of the london _circles_ - had heard before would - I hoped - draw
people.
_Everything about a reading announces its ethos._
No. Not in the way you express it. Not 1:1 and not when one does not have
the resources to control venue etc. Often readings take place in the
reading equivalent of temporary classrooms. I would like to have ethos and
media perfectly matched; but that, I think, is a utopian agenda.
One does what one can. There are different ways of doing it. What I
complained about on Tuesday night was a blip and it was silly in a way to
have complained. I *think* the audience would have been better had I done
more immediately before. Certainly, had I not made the booking for a
Tuesday, but then we could not have seen Spencer Selby. I shall be less
keen to vary the day. I shall produce more leaflets...
I have more sites now ready to display posters but there hasn't been time
to implement yet.
Anyway, I don't think it is useful, here / now to talk at any length about
SVP _publicity, the terminology, the venue, the topping and tailing, the
programming_ specifically. All of these matters are important, of course,
very important but that they make necessarily some kind of an allegorical
statement about a reading's ethos - come on, cris, THAT'S not an adequate
response. But these points are well worth discussing generally.
_It's simply not an adequate response to start | talking about utopian
agendas on which gender | (and much also) renders no difference._
absolutely but i dont know what utopian agendas we are talking about -
seems to me _utopian_ was dropped in there as an aunt sally.
_ We need to get more cunning in our strategies, that is unless we LIKE
things just the way they are_
ye.....ee.....ssssss... _I have a cunning plan_?
Karlien - I agree with what you said; it was very nice of you to take the
trouble to say it though - AND it was also constructive, more than my
outburst .......
but maybe an outburst can sometimes be good... I did do it partly with that
in mind.
I think the continuity is important and would worry greatly if it were
going wrong all the time. Actually, as I have said, quite the opposite. It
is the apathy / lack of curiosity we need to counter.
I have seen a number of really fascinating readings have tiny audiences and
I just wish more people had seen it. As someone backchannelled from the
states when I first burst out last night _i would ride the jubilee line
from willesden green to hear that pair of poets._
Anyway... Let's get on with it
Diana Bless you both
L
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
