Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] A Tale of Two Professors

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    Lizzie, Your site is funny as in queer not as in ha-ha. I m with David, and I so advise my students: read it aloud or hear it done so by recordings of the
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Lizzie,
      Your site is funny as in queer not as in ha-ha. I'm with David, and I
      so advise my students: read it aloud or hear it done so by recordings of
      the poet. Dylan Thomas and T.S. Eliot are examples of two whose work is
      better heard than read. I did not appreciate what a magnificent and
      under-rated poet Conrad Aiken was until I heard Cademon recordings he made.

      Cheers,
      Mike

      David Bratman wrote:

      >At 11:26 AM 12/1/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >>I recently came across a funny site about poetry that took the opposite
      >>stance, that it should not be read aloud because that was "artificial" or
      >>some such argument.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >It seemed to me that the argument of the article you linked to was that
      >_listening_ to a poet's reading of his own poetry should not be taken as
      >the definitive interpretation. That might not always be true, but it's a
      >different point. I was in any case talking of reading poetry aloud, not
      >listening to someone else read it aloud. If, as the article suggests, some
      >can read silently as if they were reading aloud, they might get out of
      >poetry what the rest of us are missing. But few have that talent.
      >
      >
      >At 09:04 AM 12/1/2004 -0800, Debra Murphy wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >>I daresay it's ultimately a matter of taste, but it strikes me that those
      >>who cannot bear Shakespeare-in-performance are probably the sorts of people
      >>who either don't care much for theatre anyway, or who live primarily inside
      >>their heads, as it were; who have so specific a construct in their minds for
      >>what the play's about that they cannot stand to see it done otherwise.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >I'm not sure if that's the problem - I believe in Shakespeare dramatized,
      >but I'm one of the people allergic to the whole idea of dramatizing LOTR
      >and specifically disappointed with the Jackson version. The difference, of
      >course, is that Tolkien dramatized is no longer Tolkien, but Shakespeare
      >dramatized is the essence of Shakespeare. Perhaps the anti-performers in
      >Shakespeare studies are the people who haven't figured that out - who,
      >again, in Tolkien's words haven't realized that drama is a separate art
      >from pure literature.
      >
      >A similar problem comes up in music. Some persist in thinking of the score
      >as the "real" music, but it is nothing of the kind. Ontologically, a score
      >is not music at all: it's instructions for performing music. The music
      >does not exist until it is performed. Something similar could be said of a
      >playscript.
      >
      >David Bratman
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.