Reading Looms

Steve’s started on the cover now, and it’s just fascinating to watch the whole book assembly process unfold.  We’re coming up against out final deadlines soon, so as to have things ready for the launch/reading, which is going to be on Monday, 4/3 at Gewirz 12 (the Law School campus by Union Station) at 7pm.  I’m going to send out invites soon and start spreading the word.  I’ll also do a more detailed blog post on the topic.

**

For those of you who have never been to a poetry reading, they’re actually a lot of fun, regardless of aesthetic.  Often two stripes of reading are shown on television.  One is the pretentious nonsense reading, where black-garbed intellectuals sit impassively and nod at key points to a poet droning on in unparseable complexities about a thoroughly uninteresting topic, often in a nasal voice.  The other is incredibly over-emoted slam/performance poetry which often centers on shocking revelations of emotionally wrenching material – rape, abuse, anything which would make the audience positively squirm in their seats.

These pretty much represent the far end of the range of actual readings, with the vast majority falling somewhere in between.  Usually the poet is savvy enough to select poems the audience can understand when they hear them read, and usually the poet does not attempt to emotionally bludgeon the audience. 
I’m one of those “usual” poets in that sense.  My general aesthetic is pretty welcoming; if the reader does not “get” what the poem is “about” on first hearing it, I consider the poem to be a failure; not that this view eschews complexity or subsequent deeper reads, but you don’t want the poem’s surface to act like a trampoline or a brick wall.  I think that’s reflected in the pieces I choose for readings.  Some are light, some are darker, but all should be accessible.

Since I’ll be on the stage for a half hour or so, I’ll also be able to read sets or series of poems that (hopefully) work together, although I expect each individual poem to stand on its own.   The actual reading time will be flexible, depending on the audience and how things are going – eventually you hit a saturation point and regardless of what’s left on the table you ought to stop.

I’ve gone back and forth with different reading formats over the years and this one will probably begin with an introduction, followed by me actually reading/reciting (whichever you prefer) poems. 

Normally I have a small bit of ad lib explication between each poem.  I used to think this was a sort of unacceptable “prop” for the poems, but I’ve come to the view that it clears the palate a bit between poems, as well as setting up the next poem in a small way that might provide small keys to the poem.   The trick is to just prime the listener ever-so-lightly so that an additional element of the poem might come out, but not so much that the actual “hand” of the poem is shown or tipped.  I actually enjoy this process quite a bit since the crowd’s reaction helps me select from several reading “paths” (different sequences of poems) that I’ve laid out.

After the reading I’ll have a Q+A session that’s pretty much a free for all – normally I get questions ranging from poetry in general to the writing process to poems I enjoy. . .it’s a really fun grab bag of ideas and interests.  This will be the first time I’ve done such a thing at a law school, so I’m curious to see if it will differ at all.  The Q+A session is generally more of an optional thing with me – I prefer to let the audience break (people leave) if they’d like.

They’ll be a few books there, and I’ll be happy to sign them (I always am) if anyone would like.

I’ll post more detail later, but that’s the general shape of the thing.   Everyone is welcome of course, DC bloggers, poets, friends, friends of friends.  It should be a fun evening. 

Comments

[Rob]

I like hearing poems read, but I'd often like to hear them several times, and then read the poems on paper afterwards. I find it very hard to take in much from listening to an initial reading.

So I'm interested that you specifically aim for accessibility at readings, even if that might mean missing out (at times) your favourite poems. It's probably the right approach.

[Scoplaw]

Well, I figure mystifying people won't really kindle any desire in them to a) attend other readings or b) seek out my poems.

I tend to think that many poems serve as "gateway" poems - kind of educate the audience to what's going on with the poet's reading voice, idiom, subjects or themes. Then if you "prime" more complex poems, they take on richer resonance than if they were just read cold. In that way, readings are best structured like books (beginning, middle, end, and one or more emotional arcs or themes the audience can pick up on). Well, for those of us who believe in the wisdom of such old-fashioned stuff.

It's true you almost always have to sacrifice some poems, but I think that if you structure the reading carefully, you can fit in some poetry that you might otherwise exclude.