<<Lawrence Upton was cogent and even succinct on Bob Cobbing text.  i hope
Andrew Duncan gets to hear that.>>

thank you Allen; i hope so - I mean that I was cogent and succinct... it
was terribly rushed... I am rewriting / writing that - what I had was much
longer and would have chimed in with some of John's usefully I think, but i
couldnt indulge myself in the time it would have taken

but it was also in notes in order for me to meet my own suggested criteria
- so I am going to  get a revision in full textual mode... so Andrew and
others can read it

<<I'm glad Ken Edwards asked Lawrence Upton to call people by their full
name.  The first name approach to an audience he/I only knew half of was
distinctly awkward.>>

Indeed. NO ONE paid much attention and I kept forgetting myself but it was
right.

I had been expecting name badges... but certainly that was one thing that
needs attention for next time. More identification. More intro. More - just
- formality? not quite... something like that. I had had to spend most of
the time for putting the last touches into basic organisation that I had
expected to have been done... Anyway.

<<Two friends left the last Sub Voicive because of this.  (Lawrence please
note.  I  don't intend to sound over-critical and know you don't mean it to
sound all-knowing or smug, but the we-are-all-pals act in a public event
wears thin. I'm still still sure it's better not to make assumptions and
give readers an introduction, however brief, as if they were not known.>>

I take no offence. But there are some things here that are worth talking
about.

_Two friends_ - yours, the poet(s), mine.?

The last SVP was Maggie O'Sullivan  and I don't think anyone left. I
referred to her as _Maggie O'Sullivan_ in my intro and then after as
Maggie. I think that was appropriate. I think that was how she would have
liked it. 

The previous SVP was Graham Hartill and Augustus Young. Perhaps that was
what they left.

Let me get this right. People left because I didn't introduce them by their
full names?

But I did. And if I hadnt I would find that weird - the leaving.

Or they left because I didn't give an intro? I think that's barmy.

This is worth talking about. BECAUSE this applies to all potential readings
surely, not just SVP

I have repeatedly tried to get intros to the readings. Generally, people
don't want to do them. Which leaves me. I don't want to do them badly. When
I have tried to do them properly - as I see it - e.g. for Patricia Farrell
and Gilbert Adair - I was told it was too long.

In addition, there is a lobby NOT to have intros at all, saying the work
should speak for itself and intros take up reading time. 

getting the information out of some of the poets is difficult and then they
get upset if you are not up to date so it sometimes easier to just say
their names

On occasions I have tried to steer a course between these opinions - one or
two line statements placing them as I see them and ALWAYS someone takes me
to task for getting it wrong... i.e. they dont agree with my judgment as i
have expressed it... on occasion quite aggressively - don't do it again
tone

so I come back to the view that it is better just to start OR do a
reasonable length intro... but there need to be a few volunteers to help
with that - it is one more thing to do -  and a greater willingness on the
part of some poets to send the info the first time I ask rather than the
nth

I think if people are going to leave readings because the organiser doesnt
do a proper intro to the readers every time, then anyone trying to do 25
readings a year will have to accept that some people leave unless others
are willing to do intros. They are the ones who miss the reading.

Specifically about svp but applies to all - There has been a lot of
complaint in the past - usually indirect reported speech - that svp is
unfriendly and difficult to get into... hence i try to use first names as
one of a number of tactics to be friendly at all costs lest I upset the
sensitive souls - but always the poet is *introduced by their full name...
it only sets up barriers - i think - if you keep up the formality and use
formal address for everyone - eg when they are giving info about
forthcoming readings

surely the reading itself is what matters - i find it hard to imagine
someone leaving a reading because they haven't had an intro to it

Clarification please, Allen - be good to see you back in London - and what
do others think on these issues? I didnt respond to do a specific defence
of svp

<<The planning needs to take that on board as part of the difficulty of
colloquiums with too many scheduled speakers.>>

i think we got an acceptable turn out *because there was the range - the
time pressure was a price to be paid... i wld have preferred fewer speakers
but not at the expense of the audience

my feeling though has always been that we needed this one we have just had
- not as ambitious as the first but still chunky - to get it running and
then do less ambitious events more frequently 

ok - i am an hour off the coach from plymouth and not as well as when i
left... i have 94 other emails

talk again in a few days... but if i drag myself to svp tomorrow night i
hope everyone else who can does - cris cheek and sianed jones - you know
cris and sianed - plus a mag devoted to cris

L





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%