Why can’t the English teach their poets how to speak?

Anyone who advocates teaching poetry in order to teach the student to speak well has obviously never heard a poet speak.

Listen, in horror, to the massacre of language committed during a typical poetry reading. The halting, stilted words dare one to find a rhythm, a hint of a pattern. All sense of flow, meter, or connection from one idea to the next is lost in the jarring path the poet follows. Apparently, since each word was chosen with such care and deliberation, the poet feels a respectful silence is deserved between each and every word.

Inflection, it seems, starts high in the poets vocal range, strained from the start, as if any vocal punctuation less urgent than an exclamation point might encourage the listener to nod off (This is an OSHA recognized job hazard for poetry reviewers.) The usual outcome of this unwavering urgency is a general ennui -- if someone yells everything, how long is it until one tunes the noise out? Contrast is a key element of any art form -- ask any poet. Most disturbingly, the inflection used normally in conversation to indicate meaning when two people talk apparently isn’t appropriate when reading poetry. Poets would have us believe that inflection during the delivery of poetry is as superfluous as word order in written Latin. “The words speak for themselves, no matter how (poorly) they’re said.” I disagree.

When read well, poetry is a true delight. I remember fondly how my grandfather, an experienced speaker, read me poems when I was young. The narrators of the Dr. Seuss animated shows can read poetry well. News anchors can read almost anything so that it’s “news”, and can even keep a straight face, which might help when reading some poetry. Poets however learn from other poets in a long and proud tradition the skills needed to make listening to poetry more painful than watching your neighbor’s home videos of their back yard picnic.

Am I just too American? Have I been spoon fed so long by Hollywood and Madison Avenue that I can’t appreciate anything that is the slightest bit inaccessible? No, that’s not the issue. If I can’t understand the art because I’m ignorant or stupid, it’s my loss. But if the artist had a choice between two ways of presenting the art, either one filling the same artistic need, then choosing the less accessible medium is not maintaining high standards: it’s just plain arrogant.

So, it’s clear there is a problem. What can we do?

Let someone else read the poems.

There is irony in having someone other than the poet reading the poems, but little novelty. Mozart was a terrible conductor, as are many classical composers. Rarely do designers of spacecraft go to space, or designers of weapons, to war. They all leave the job to...professionals.

I admit, I am reluctant to endorse the creation of another job that, like television announcers, could be considered vacuous. The last thing we need is another distributor in a world short on content providers. But if they will add value to my poetry listening experience, I’ll be all ears.

Go to other rantings by Steve.

Return to the Home of the Haptonstahls