Depends, if you want to really appreciate the poem, you have to read it, you just notice more,but if it is read first time, it can seem just a powerful, even if you miss stuff.
Another poetry thread
Sorry, this occured to me while thinking about another thread, but it didn't quite fit there.
Do you think poetry should be read or listened to? Does it exist primarily on the page or in being recited?
Do you think poetry should be read or listened to? Does it exist primarily on the page or in being recited?
6 Replies and 1111 Views in Total.
Yeah, personally I prefer to read poetry. Not only do you notice more about it but you can also put your own slant on it, make it seem more personal.
Neither. Both the voice and the page are channels for communication but the poem would not exist without two things:
by Demona
Does it exist primarily on the page or in being recited?
an author or performer
someone to hear or read it
The poem exists in the minds of the creator and the audience.
Neither means of communication is inherently superior. A recitation by the author is more likely to show what they intended when they wrote it but that doesn't mean they are right.
I like to read a poem as I can then inject what it means to me & the feelings it generates. Although hearing the author read it out would say show they are aiming at, I enjoy pulling my own conclusions.
So for me it would be a definite read it myself, (I don't get the opportunity to listen to that many poetry authors so it is just as well )
So for me it would be a definite read it myself, (I don't get the opportunity to listen to that many poetry authors so it is just as well )
Also, many poets, while gifted in shaping words into beautiful poems, do *not* have the gifts of public speaking. I have heard readings which have been intensely disappointing because the author was unable to express themself as well orally as they were in print.
by Incandenza
A recitation by the author is more likely to show what they intended when they wrote it but that doesn't mean they are right.
Originally, of course, poetry was primarily oral entertainment. Since the use of writing became widespread, and particularly since the introduction of printing, I don't think that's the case. There are even poems I can think of that are designed to be read rather than listened too (think Gerard Manley Hopkins's 'Easter Wings' - that would lose a lot if you didn't see its shape on the page).
Personally, I prefer to read poetry to myself. I find I get more out of it as I can go back and re-examine difficult/interesting passages whereas if the poem is being read aloud they are gone. Also, I'm just more that sort of person. I even find it more satisfying to read plays than to go to the theatre
I wasn't necessarily refering to the author reading their poetry. It is perhaps a very Victorian concept to read poetry out loud in a private setting, but that was more to what I was refering. But then, they didn't have television...
In listening to poetry the meter becomes more immediate (this does depend upon an experienced reader/speaker - verse can fall very flat when read without the appropriate rhythm) as do the sounds and the feel of the words on the tongue (read Coleridge's Kubla Khan out loud. I don't pretend to understand the poem but it feel wonderful to read ). To some extent I think you get a greater feel for the poem in its entirety - if someone else is reading you cannot be tempted to re-read parts and lose the flow of the poem, or focus on details at the expense of greater meaning.
However, you lose the shape of the poem, the line divisions become less immediate, you lose puns and ambiguities based on punctuation (though some ambiguities are gained by reading out loud, but I think it less common). As already mentioned you lose some of the ability to place your interpretation on the poem.
If I had to choose between them, I would rather read poetry on the page, but there is much to be gained by reading poetry out loud.
I cannot agree with this one. It is debatable whether poetry is intended to be recited or read, but plays are intended to be performed. Plays only work properly when performed - at least they should, otherwise there is little point in their being plays. There may be details that are more easily seen when reading a play and at leisure to re-read and think about the text, but this should be in addition to performance and not a replacement for it.
In listening to poetry the meter becomes more immediate (this does depend upon an experienced reader/speaker - verse can fall very flat when read without the appropriate rhythm) as do the sounds and the feel of the words on the tongue (read Coleridge's Kubla Khan out loud. I don't pretend to understand the poem but it feel wonderful to read ). To some extent I think you get a greater feel for the poem in its entirety - if someone else is reading you cannot be tempted to re-read parts and lose the flow of the poem, or focus on details at the expense of greater meaning.
However, you lose the shape of the poem, the line divisions become less immediate, you lose puns and ambiguities based on punctuation (though some ambiguities are gained by reading out loud, but I think it less common). As already mentioned you lose some of the ability to place your interpretation on the poem.
If I had to choose between them, I would rather read poetry on the page, but there is much to be gained by reading poetry out loud.
She's a witch! Buuuuurrrrrrn her!!!
by White Hart
(quotes)
Also, I'm just more that sort of person. I even find it more satisfying to read plays than to go to the theatre
I cannot agree with this one. It is debatable whether poetry is intended to be recited or read, but plays are intended to be performed. Plays only work properly when performed - at least they should, otherwise there is little point in their being plays. There may be details that are more easily seen when reading a play and at leisure to re-read and think about the text, but this should be in addition to performance and not a replacement for it.