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

Re: [mythsoc] reading aloud (was A Tale of Two Professors) firstly, the poetry

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
    ... on ... Ohh, well then. Isn t this delicious. Thanks. ... one s ... thing ... pencil. ... at ... my ... timing, ... Well.... yes... You lay down on the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2004
      > [Original Message]
      > From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
      > To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: 12/2/2004 11:14:34 AM
      > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] reading aloud (was A Tale of Two Professors)
      > At 09:12 AM 12/2/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
      > >You mean, reading it aloud oneself? In that case, is one reading to hear
      > >one's voice speak the poem, or reading to feel the taste of the language
      > >one's tongue?
      > Mostly the latter. That's why it's reading, not listening, that makes
      > poetry. And if you are listening, the poet is not necessarily the best
      > reader of his work, any more than the composer is necessarily the best
      > conductor: they're different talents.
      Ohh, well then. Isn't this delicious. Thanks.

      > >To read silently as if one were reading aloud is, for me, just the matter
      > >of reading a bit more slowly, and listening to the words drop through my
      > >head. It is easier than reading aloud, in that it is not hindered by
      > >vocal qualities (or lack thereof). It is a little like envisioning a
      > >you want to draw -- which is not so difficult until one picks up the
      > I don't think that reading silently slowly is the same as reading aloud,
      > least not for me or, I think, for most people. It's hard to keep from
      > speeding up, and silent reading doesn't convey the sense of vocalization.
      > Even subvocalization isn't the same thing as reading aloud. I once had to
      > time a playscript - how long would it take to perform? I timed it by
      > mumbling it to myself while riding in an airplane. (This was before 9/11:
      > today, I'd probably be suspected of being a terrorist praying the Koran,
      > something which actually happened to me in an airport boarding area when
      > physical position - lying on the carpet because all the seats were taken -
      > was deemed suspicious.) Anyway, I thought I was making an accurate
      > but later was informed to my horror that the actual reading aloud of the
      > play took twice as long as my subvocalized rendition did.
      Well.... yes...

      You lay down on the carpet in an airport? Are you nuts? One could get
      stepped on. One could get dirty.

      What is subvocalization? Reading quietly to oneself (or "mumbling")?

      Next time, add a little, what is that game? -- Charades -- to your

      I suppose we are all different.

      You know... I once dreamed I ate a giant marshmallow. When I awoke, my
      pillow was gone.

      Now THAT's good silent reading.

      Elizabeth Apgar Triano
      amor vincit omnia
    • David Bratman
      ... It was a clean carpet. And nobody was going to get stepped on. The area was jammed with people waiting for a delayed flight. ... He did better than Ralph
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 2, 2004
        At 11:38 AM 12/2/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:

        >You lay down on the carpet in an airport? Are you nuts? One could get
        >stepped on. One could get dirty.

        It was a clean carpet. And nobody was going to get stepped on. The area
        was jammed with people waiting for a delayed flight.

        >I maintain that it is Impossible to commit LOTR (or many another bit of
        >lit) to film, and that Jackson did so much better than I would have
        >imagined that I am happy.

        He did better than Ralph Bakshi or Rankin-Bass, but unfortunately that is
        not a compliment.

        An A for effort is not a final grade.

        Do you think we'd all still be reading LOTR fifty years later if _it_ had
        merely been "better than one would have imagined" for "an impossible task"?

        >Terry Gilliam? Is he one of the Monty Python guys? There's a Terry there
        >somewhere. So, tell us about it.

        Defining Terry Gilliam today as "one of the Monty Python guys" is pretty
        much like defining another director, Ron Howard, as "the kid on the Andy
        Griffith show." He directed "Brazil", "The Fisher King", and "Twelve
        Monkeys". His Quixote project died because it was underfinanced and the
        actor playing Quixote became seriously ill.

        >> But none of it has anything whatever to do with Tolkien.

        So this whole matter was brought up under cover of a discussion of
        dramatization of Tolkien's book. A defense of the film as film, divorced
        from Tolkien's book, is irrelevant to the point, and a distraction from the
        painful truth that, as a dramatization, it's a miserable failure.

        David Bratman
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.