 |
 |
Yes, of course, George (& I suspect there have been many more responses to this, but here I am a couple of days late). Nevertheless, when she has learned to do so well, there is no better person than the poet to read her or his poems & practice before an audience tends to make people either learn to do it or to give up (in Canada we have a reading circuit so one can learn to give readings quite well; although I know some poets who don't do such a good job). Nevertheless, I have also had my own poems butchered by actors trying too hard -- at something.... Doug On 10-Dec-05, at 10:29 AM, George Hunka wrote: > Doug, > > And there are those poets who read their own poetry terribly. Pinter > spent ten years acting before he wrote his first play, so reads his > own work, poetry or prose, extremely well. Eliot, for another example, > not so much. > > Best, > George > > Douglas Barbour wrote: >> Alison >> >> this is very interesting, & I end to agree. I think it interesting >> then that those who have seen the Pinter speech remarked on his own >> subtlety of performance of his own text (clearly mostly prose). >> >> I just wanted to add something brought u[ before, about how a poem >> works differently than does drama, yet is rooted in the body. How >> actors so often get a poem wrong, because they 'perform' it as if it >> were a dramatic text, when in fact it tends to be much subtler >> (quieter?). Of course, there is 'spoken word' which seems, quite >> often to me, to be more tuned to performance than to language. >> >> Doug >> On 9-Dec-05, at 12:48 PM, Alison Croggon wrote: >> >>> Hi George, Doug, all >>> >>> By no means sick of hearing from you, George - It's got me thinking, >>> this >>> difference between play and poem, since one of my obsessions >>> (obviously, for >>> anyone who knows me) is their deep relatedness. I suppose a huge >>> part of the >>> poetic in plays and theatre is gesture and body (literally, I mean), >>> which >>> is so implicated in the language, and in the structures of speaking >>> - the >>> idea of language as action itself, the knowledge that something will >>> be said >>> in time and so must be graspable in time - which hardly eschews >>> complexity >>> (thinking of Heiner Muller here, say) - but does spin it in subtly >>> different >>> directions from poetry. Whereas in poems, the language carries the >>> whole can >>> - although of course there are many kinds of poetry, so I'm >>> generalising >>> wildly and unwisely. I know I want to pack a density and a quality >>> of torque >>> or spin into language in poems in ways which wouldn't necessarily >>> work in >>> theatrical language. But of course there are no border lines - at >>> the same >>> time, the implication of the body in poems is crucial to me. (I can >>> really >>> here only speak of my own practice of reading and writing) and that >>> dimension of orality...the differences seem to me to be clear, but, >>> like >>> much to do with writing, almost impossible to define in any precise >>> way. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> Alison Croggon >>> >>> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com >>> Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au >>> Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com >>> >>> >> Douglas Barbour >> 11655 - 72 Avenue NW >> Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9 >> (780) 436 3320 >> >> My roof was once firm >> yet now it cannot even >> >> keep the stars out. >> >> Christopher Dewdney >> >> > > -- > > George Hunka > [log in to unmask] > http://www.ghunka.com > > Douglas Barbour 11655 - 72 Avenue NW Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9 (780) 436 3320 My roof was once firm yet now it cannot even keep the stars out. Christopher Dewdney