Eight Poets to Ignore Part II: "Poet Voice"

Matt Petronzio

     In our original article, "Eight Poets to Ignore", we saw the various ways that poetry readers, reciters and performers fail.  This is important because, with no idea how it can be presented successfully, today's poetry aspirants will have no idea how it should be written.  When the verse being published has no sonic or performance value--and most doesn't--we have a vicious circle.  Nothing to show and no one to show it.  In the second installment in this series we focus on the plight facing those from the print world.

     In "Why are poets' voices so insufferably annoying?" we receive some advice from Matt Petronzio's grad school thesis adviser, "Catherine":  'Don't read it like it's a poem,' she said. 'Read it like you're talking to me.' In other words, read like a human."

     That's a solid tip but, better yet, don't read it at all.  Don't recite it either.  Perform it. 
 

Deborah Tannen

     Mr. Petronzio quotes Deborah Tannen, Linguistics professor at Georgetown University:  "You want to sound like your peer group, and you want to sound like a person you identify with should sound."

     You want to do nothing of the sort.

     Granted, mindless conformists¹ will follow along, but only after ignoring every scintilla of evidence and reason.  These lemmings would have to remain oblivious to the copious articles, including this series, ridiculing "Poet Voice", the track record of the readers (i.e. zero successes in more than half a century) and the out-of-the-mouth-of-babes observers asking "Why is that person talking funny?"
 
 

Lisa Marie Basile

    We encounter confirming counsel, this time from Lisa Marie Basile:  "'Poet Voice', if nothing else, is simply a regurgitation of someone else's massive failings."  She goes on to compare "Poet Voice" with what I'll call "Reader Voice".  The former is simply the most risible form of the latter.  Is this really our goal, to be less laughable?  Indeed, Ms. Basile succeeds in avoiding "Poet Voice" in her own work while exemplifying "Reader Voice".  

     Here is a simple test:  have friends close their eyes while you read to them.  If they can guess it is a prepared text you were guilty of "Reader Voice" and will need to continue working on your delivery.     

Rich Smith

     While his writing won't win him any Pulitzers, Rich Smith's Stop Using 'Poet Voice' may be the definitive word on the subject, but in trying to name convincing performers he demonstrates only the difficulty of that task.  Instead, we see a range from "Poet Voicers" to "Reader Voicers" and "Reciters".  I can sympathize with his failure.  I've seen one competent performer and one great one in my time but, like Yeti sightings, I have no video to prove my claims.³  The best I can do for now is refer you to some of the entries in the "Poetry Out Loud" project.  Such is the state of the art.

     Look at some of the readings listed below² and you will see the elements of "Poet Voice" on display:

1.  Random pauses.

2.  Random head movements.

3.  Random inflections, tending to rise as phrases and sentences end.

4.  Otherwise, a monotone.

5.  Over-enunciation.

6.  Over-stressing syllables.

7.  Complete lack of facial expression.

8.  Lack of gesture.

9.  Utter failure to engage the audience (i.e. nose buried in text).

10. Shortened or "breathless" phrasing.

11. Tedious, whiny self-absorption;  too much of today's "poems" seem like email from rehab.

12. Lack of prosodic technique, verging on complete.

13. Long explanatory preramble [sic], underscoring the unnatural speaking to come.

14. Rushing.

15. Forgetting that humans are conditioned since childhood to fall asleep when you read to them.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #138

      So, what are audiences looking for?

      It's only a guess, since such audiences don't exist, but I will say it is a person who respects the words enough to learn and practice them.  It's someone who speaks to us in a natural voice, as a skilled actor or actress would.  It should seem as if the talker is winging it, pausing not for breath but for thought.  It should sound like a buddy in a bar.  It would be indistinguishable from the preamble except that, ideally, there should be no preamble.  It should be worth hearing.  Always start with that.

     If you can point to such a performance of contemporary poetry please let us know the URL.  So far, we're stumped.

---

Footnotes:

¹ - Lisa Marie Basile laments this lack of circumspection in "Poet Voice and Flock Mentality:  Why Poets Need to Think for Themselves".


² - Here are eight presentations not worth emulating:

1. Gregory Orr reading "Gathering the Bones".

2. Louis Glück reading "Crossroads" from "A Village Voice".

3. Natasha Trethewey reading "Lunch Poems".

4. Timothy Donnelly hammering accented syllables.

5. Adam Fitzgerald's odd rising inflections.

6. Dorothea Lasky's breathless nasal monotone.

7. Lynn Melnick's flat reading, as if she'd never seen the text before.

8. Lisa Ciccarello, pausing randomly as if to remind us that this is "poetry".

     We might like some of these poems for aspects of their content (e.g. images, metaphors, contrasts, insights, etc.) but those are characteristics shared with fine prose.  The need to read old works from a page doesn't argue for it as poetry.


³ - In my defense, video cameras and cell phones weren't invented yet.           

---

Series:

• Eight Poets To Ignore Part I:  "All Types"



• Eight Poets to Ignore Part II:  "Poet Voice"



• Eight Poets to Ignore Part III: "Prompting"

---

Eight Poets To Ignore Part I: "All Types"

     In preliterate societies "poet" referred to a person who preserved the oral tradition by memorizing verse and teaching it to the next generation.  The expression "professional poet" is a punch line today but when the art form was alive pros were commonplace, entertaining crowds with verse from various sources.  Only after the demise of the pursuit did "poet" refer exclusively to someone¹ who writes poetry.  Imagine if "musician" referred only to composers.  Who would play the instruments?  Michael Oldfield?

     Being the audiovisual medium that it is, poetry involves a trio of essentials:  words, presenters and audiences.  Like food, water, and air, all three aspects are equally important but it is in presentation where "the rubber meets the road."  Contrary to what some instructors will tell you, audiences need no education beyond being told to show up, shut up, and listen up.  Also contrary to popular misconception, wretched verse can be rescued by brilliant display, the most visible example being the addition of music to insipid lyrics.  (Who doesn't have guilty pleasures among popular songs?)  Conversely, great writing can fall victim to poor production.  Anyone who has seen a high school production of Shakespeare knows what happens to the right words in the wrong hands.

     Like solvent or marijuana users, attendees at readings, open mics and slams lose vision, staring blankly as they lapse into a special trance.  This state of semi-consciousness is measured on the Glue Coma Scale ("GCS") between 0 and 10, where 0 is a meth high while 10 can involve an actual loss of pulse.  Indeed, any event that may attract a preponderance of 10s should be monitored by a deaf nurse with a crash cart.

     For your convenience, here is a taxonomy of the extant species of poetry presenters, albeit with considerable crossbreeding/overlap:

Monodroners (aka "Readers";  roughly:  "Academics")

     The dreaded poetry reading comes in a language of its own, complete with random pauses, odd over-enunciations and inflections designed to reduce audiences [to slumber].  Only by making the reading this robotic and dull can literary types make books seem engaging by comparison.

     Readings are to poetry what karaoke is to opera.

     GCS:  10 out of 10
     Mix:  100% at Poetry readers, 5% elsewhere

    'Droners are, by far, the least interesting voices in poetry...or any other endeavor.  Their only competition came from filibustering politicians, puppeteers and cricketers.

Slammers

     Slammers use a similar monotone but in fast forward speed and at many times the volume.  Subject matter is limited to the latest outrage.  Eyes rarely focus but will often roll up and to the right² as they try to remember the next part of their screed.

     GCS:  7 out of 10
     Mix:  80% at slams, 15% at open mics, 0% at readings.

     If you plan to be this tedious at least have youth as an excuse.

Messengers

     These "Voices of God" come in two extremes.  Dashboard Messiahs rain down fire and brimstone, apparently hoping to be the millionth prophet to bring you The Good "News".  More common are the Obscurant Pseudointellectuals who have confused their confusion with something interesting and want to rescue you from a life of clarity blissful ignorance.  In either case, the experience can never be delivered artistically, lest The Truth become a painted courtesan.  For what it's worth, the philosopher wannabes adhere more strictly to their anti-aesthetic.  Mistaking their offerings for poetry is more than a stretch;  it is an act of will. Ersatz prophets will occasionally let loose strings of passable rhetoric, if not poetry.

     GCS:  6 for preachers, 9 for reachers
     Mix:  90% for readings, 60% for slams, 20% at open mics.

Sacrificials

     Before some slams a non-participating "sacrificial poet" will "set the pace" with a sample poem.  Open mikes often include a clumsy, throw-away effort by the organizer, the purpose of which is to increase participation by lowering expectations and anxieties.  "Hell, even I can do better than that!" 

     GCS:  4
     Mix:  2% at open mics and readings, 4% at slams.

     As with any stunt, one has to be good to seem this bad.

     From all appearances, 99% of poetry published today is sacrificial.

Corazoners

     If you have ever listened to an overgrown teenager whine and wail about losing a fictitious "bestie" or lover you understand why these events have a strict time limit.  Unfortunately, corazoners have the power to warp time, turning three minutes into three decades.  Worse yet, listening to this can lower your metabolism.

     GCS:  7
     Mix:  35% slams and open mics, 2% at readings.

     Why come to an open mic when you can stay home and watch soap operas instead?

Diarists

     "Solipsism is only one insignificant individual away from nihilism."

      We understand why these people write this stuff.  Why do they feel so compelled to show it, though?

     GCS:  8
     Mix:  70% at readings, 60% at slams, 25% at open mics.

      At least corazoners have been in love with someone other than themselves.

Pounders

      You'll often see reciters play whack-a-mole with stressed and recurring sounds.  In the past, this was limited to metrists who didn't know better than to beat out the rhythms and rhymes like an acid-flashing drummer.  More disturbing is to witness performers do the same thing with free verse. 

     GCS:  4
     Mix:  55% among formalists, 6% at open mics, 4% elswhere.

      Scientists have yet to determine the cause of this bizarre behavior.  If nothing else, theorizing can be good mental exercise, making this more interesting than almost anything else you're likely to find at such events.

Performance

     Unlike Slammers, capital "P" Performance poets are free to distract audiences from their inadequacies with props, costumes, sound effects (including music), and even nudity.  Barring copyright considerations, they are also permitted to use someone else's writing but, of course, none do.  Most events become a Bazaar of the Bizarre, with participants competing to see who can alienate the audience most.  Fun times.  For about five minutes.

     GCS:  3
     Mix:  Never at readings, 1% elsewhere.

     While their heyday has passed, the good news is that Performance types remain the most skilled presenters listed thus far.  That is also the bad news.

     A century ago these same audiences were attending Freak Shows.

---

     Where have all the storytellers gone?  We have no shortage of people re-enacting stories, from Shakespearean actors to feature and documentary film makers.  We have story writers (e.g. Ray Bradbury, Carole Shields) and story singers (e.g. Harry Chapin, Gordon Lightfoot) by the thousands.  We have no shortage of comedians telling jokes or reporters giving us the news.  Guest speakers are hired for their political or educational value.  Ours is the first culture to lack popular raconteurs who climb onstage or step in front of cameras, look everyone in the eye and entertain (and, perhaps, edify?) them with spoken narratives.  If the public isn't entertained by prose speakers what hope is there for poetry ones?

     Put simply, we have lost the ability to write verse like this, perform it like this
(or this or dozens of other examples) and produce it like this.  Not surprising, we lack audiences, let alone those who will demand this level of quality.
 



     GCS:  0
     Mix:  0%

     This package of writers, performers and fans that we call "poetry" was once as common as passenger pigeons.  As with so many extinctions, the disappearance of verse³ from our culture resulted from a loss of habitat.  An ecosystem is gone.

     Emotive?  Dramatic?  Comedic?  Elegiac?  It doesn't matter what mood or genre you need.  We don't have the narrator.

---

Footnotes:

¹ poet - noun

1. a person who composes poetry.

2. a person who has the gift of poetic thought, imagination, and creation, together with eloquence of expression.

² - ...as opposed to when we look up and to the left during calculation.

³ - Except for lyrics, a form of verse which is flourishing as never before.

---

Series:

• Eight Poets To Ignore Part I:  "All Types"



• Eight Poets to Ignore Part II:  "Poet Voice"



• Eight Poets to Ignore Part III: "Prompting"

---

The Good, The Bad and the Indifferent

Billy Collins

    In "Music to a Poet's Ear" Billy Collins ("BC") is quoted as saying:  "Lyrics just don't hold up without the music."

    WTF? 

    And poems do? 

    In truth, almost no contemporary poems, starting with his own, hold up to scrutiny now or over time, with or without music.  In fact, over the last forty years the batting average of lyricists has been better than that of poets by a factor of infinity.  To wit, during that time we've had thousands of hit songs but not a single iconic poem--not even within the community that claims to read it (i.e. poets). 

Jim Morrison, 1943-1971

    With nary a hint of irony, the Laureate goes on to say:  "Jim Morrison is not a poet in any sense of the word."

     And Billy Collins is?

     Seriously.

     The Great Unwashed for whom Billy Collins expresses such disregard will be indifferent or feel the same way toward him [and, to be fair, most other living poets].  At the far extreme from the unfamiliar masses are the geeks sharing the same opinion.  Without exception, the more we know about the elements of the craft the lower our opinion of BC's "work" sinks.  Between those two poles are the dilettantes, few of whom could recite a single line he's written.  Here is a practical test:  Find those who confess to not knowing the difference between BC's offerings and poetry.  Ask them if "The Red Wheelbarrow" is free verse or metrical.  Not one will get it right.

     QED.

     The problem is that ConPoets such as Mr. Collins jury rig their definition of poetry to fit what they like to write without regard to technique, prosody, memorability, audience or any other measurable.  This is why we cringe whenever we hear the expression "substance over form."  When pseudointellectuals contend that depth is what distinguishes poetry from prose I wonder what authors they are reading.  Similarly, when they draw false dichotomies between poems and lyrics, I recommend songwriters like Cohen, Dylan, Ferron, Mitchell and others, inviting comparison between their verses and the pallid lines we see in literary 'zines.  This is not just the standard rhetorical ploy of comparing the Best of A to the Worst of B.  As uncommon as great song lyrics are, fine poetry is rarer still.  Always has been.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #11

     As for contemporary poetry standing the test of time, almost no one alive in 2015 can recite a single line of text-only poetry (i.e. without music) written during Jim Morrison's glory years between 1967 and 1971.  Thus, "Light my Fire" alone has already eclipsed everything Mr. Collins and his contemporaries will produce.  Don't expect that to change in the next 44 years.  Or the next 440.  Does this make Jim Morrison a good poet?

     Hardly, but it does make him a bad one--in every sense of the word--and that is a start.  Poetry is one of only two modes of communication.  Does anyone wish to argue that Doors lyrics are prose?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #148

     To see Jim Morrison's efforts in perspective we all have to stipulate that "bad verse" is not an oxymoron.  In fact, it is almost as common as oxygen.  What is more, 99% of it is every bit as godawful as Jim Morrison's and BC's.

     To avoid this assessment, we could apply the original, objective, demand side (tinds) definition of poetry but with that comes the sobering realization that nothing written in the last half century qualifies. 

     As Leonard Cohen says, "poetry is a judgement, not a claim."  No audience?  No judgement.  No poetry. 

     Tree.  Falling.  Forest.     

---

tin- and tan-

     For those unfamiliar with Usenet abbreviations, "tin-" and "tan-" in brackets (and, often, smaller lettering), refer to "there is no..." and "there are no...", respectively.  These are followed by the initials of whatever was just mentioned and is now being nullified.

     For example, in the statement "Poetry audiences (tanpa) love me!" the "tanpa" reminds readers that there are no poetry audiences in real life.  Similarly, having read "on the demand side (tinds) of poetry", an unsuspecting newcomer would be warned by "tinds" that there is no demand side for poetry.

---

The Dreaded Bell Jar Curve

Bark blogger Brett Ortler

     In "Too Many Writers: The Best Problem in Contemporary Poetry", Blogger Brett Ortler writes:  "If there are too many writers, yes, you’ll have a lot of schlock (most of writing produced will be middling or bad).  Nevertheless, if you have a glut of writers, you’ll also, by definition, have an excess of good writing."

     Given that he produces a science blog, Brett has committed a surprising error.  It becomes evident the moment he trots out the dreaded Bell Jar Curve. 

     Can you spot the mistake?

---

     No, Brett, a glut of writers will not necessarily or even generally produce "an excess of good writing."  Indeed, it hasn't.  The reason is simple:  "good writing" does not refer to "the best of a bad lot."  We have models passed down through millennia to define this.  Rather, the inept majority might form a voting bloc to preclude any initiative or funding that might allow more talented artists to reach and please an audience.  As for the less gifted horde, even if 100 chimpanzees with 100 typewriters do produce Shakespeare after 100 years it won't register as more than an imperceptible dot--an inconsequential fluke rather than an outlier, let alone meaningful data--on your chart.

     The Bell Jar Curve is made for random/natural phenomena that trend toward a middle ground:  crop yields, rain patterns, golf scores.  Standard deviations are useless for art not because humans are unpredictable but because, for better or worse, they are easily influenced.  It would be like measuring crop yields during a hurricane or golf scores in three feet of snow.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #11

      For poets of yore, a pyramid would be a more representative shape.  There were plenty of William McGonagalls at the bottom, none worth distinguishing from the others.  Only Shakespeare would be at the top.

     The disappearance of fundamentals, coupled with the death of poetry in the early 1900s, squeezed the pyramid.  The center was lost as average poets were replaced by ConPoets who think doggerel or lineated prose will please an audience, even as they avoid listening to it themselves.  Now the pattern is a thick vertical line with two progressively tinier dots after it.  The first signifies those few hundred out of 2 million who know trochees from iambs;  after that, we see the handful who can create something interesting with that knowledge.  We can't chart this because by the time the smallest speck of skilled authors becomes visible the column of aspiring muggles may have stretched itself twice around the moon and be heading home.

     Times change.

---

"There are more poets (soi-disant) than ever there were, and proportionally less poetry."

- Lord Byron

---

Numbers III

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #143

     Blogger Nic Sebastian echoes a question:  "Isn’t attempting to monetize poetry a lose-lose proposition for both poetry and poets?"

     We won't quibble long about the figure of 200,000 poets in the United States--the real number is closer to 2,000,000--beyond noting that the closer the respondent is to The Ivory Tower the lower the estimate.¹  This doesn't matter much because I can accept the premise:  the number of poetry readers is, at most, equal to the number of producers.  (Mind you, it's probably equally true that the number of rock albums being sold is equal to the number of air guitarists out there.  I wonder what percentage of those 186,440,000 prose readers are novelists in their dreams, at least.  110%?  150%?)

          In fact, if we consider why people (i.e. poets) read poetry, the news becomes even more depressing.  Are poets reading as fans, for pleasure?  Or are they practitioners interested only in who and what is being published where?²  Whatever percentage of "poetry consumers" (tanpc) fall into the latter category should be removed or, at least, asterisked when we get down to discussing those who enjoy poetry for its intrinsic value.  Let's be generous and split the difference:  half of poets read contemporary poetry for the same reasons they read prose or watch movies.

     Earl the Squirrel's Rule #138

     That isn't much to work with.  Half a reader per writer.  Let's not forget about fragmentation.  Academics don't write for onliners;  onliners don't write for slammers; and, slammers don't write for academics.  But wait!  It gets much worse!  Apparently, we should eliminate all genres other than pontifications and memes that will "shift [the readers'] view of a situation, elevate their perspective, help them grapple with a challenge that before seemed unmanageable."  To hell with romantic, dramatic, narrative, tragic or comedic stories;  only self-help tomes should be put forward.  Oh, and as a poet, "I don’t want to calculate my words or their presentation..."  Heaven forfend that we think before we write!  Especially if we are going to be [gasp!] paid for it!

     Of course, none of this has anything to do with attempts to monetize poetry.  Granted, when Nobody Reads Poetry it goes without saying no one is going to buy it.  The problem is that removing cost doesn't help much.  We literally can't give this stuff away.

     Is there any chance of success here?

     Sure. 

     Just do the opposite of what all the failures are doing.

---

Footnotes:

¹ -  And the closer to home the definition roosts.  In the blog cited Ron Silliman and Seth Abramson discuss numbers based on those "graduated from MFA or Ph.D. in Creative Writing programs."  Apparently, no one else need apply--not even English graduates!  Can you say "slam"?  "Online critical forum"?  "Vanity venue"?  "Self-publishing"?  "Indies"?  The roughly 99% of poets who aren't MFA, Creative Writing or English graduates?

² - We'd cite those accessing a source only because their friend or relative is being published there.  We'd also exclude from our count books purchased by students as part of a compulsory reading list.

---

Spotting Human Poetry

      It is hard to believe that 98% of the poetry being published today isn't computer-generated.  A writer types in a few seed words, hits a button and, if particularly diligent, selects lines that fit the previous ones.  Voilà!  Poetry! 

      The good news is that it is remarkably easy to spot verse that couldn't be produced electronically.  This 2% is divided between works that are either too good or two awful to have been created by programs.  We've seen samples of the upper echelon.  This is what the lowest 1% looks like, copied and pasted exactly as it appears in a venue that describes itself as "an intelligent, stylish, unpretentious magazine":

How will a Mormon boy get a wife,
I wondered,if he declines his mission to wander the world,
spreading the Mormon word as he goes:
no wife for a Mormon boy who refuses.

So I was kind to two young Mormon men
who came to my door last Saturday morning--
the point man in short-sleeved shirt and blue tie,
his back-up in short-sleeved shirt and blue tie--

the former displaying a pulp magazine
which featured a story on the fashion industry
and its dangers, especially to young women:
anorexia, bulimia, and low self-esteem.

     Because we have a Mercy Rule here, I'll spare you the last eight paragraphs and won't identify the author of this tripe.  (Better questions would be:  "Who publishes it?"  and "Why?")  Yes, there is a space missing after "wondered," in S1-L2.  Notice the obvious errors any grammar- and punctuation-checker would catch.  Note the run-on sentences, the second of which begins with the dreaded conjunction, "so".  Check out the comically overused em dashes. 

     We know this is written by a human because state-of-the-art software is incapable of producing anything so devoid of merit.

---