From high school through to University, teachers and lectures of English literature will say that poetry is intended to be performed- it is an oral form of literature.
Whether this is or is not just a flippant comment, I am unsure about the absoluteness of this statement. Without arguing about the semantics of the word ‘intended’-(for example, I could argue that the tofu, gherkin, and vegemite sandwich I made was intended to be tasty, but that doesn’t mean it was) -I want to explore the idea of poetry as an oral art form.
Entrenched in a lot of cultures and viewpoints is the idea that poetry needs to be spoken and therefore performed. This could be due to a number of reasons that aren’t completely incontestable. Historically, poetry is oral. Ballads were performed so they could be passed down from generation to generation. Rhythm, rhyme and repetition were important prompts in remembering the content of the story. Specific words were less important and even the content changed slightly overtime, with each telling. The actual words in ballads were more fluid as there was less emphasis on a concrete product that could be replicated due to the fact that there was no way to produce products for a mass audience. Now with a way to produce products for a mass audience, is the intended oral nature of poetry still essential as poetry is no longer such an intrinsic part of expressing our folklore?
Another reason often cited to why poetry is performed is the close link between poetry and music. Poetry relies on sounds, rhythms, rhymes, half-rhymes, assonance, consonance, beats, off beats. In languages which aren’t phonetic, like the English language, the written word does not visually replicate the beauty of these poetic techniques.
However, while the written word is only one facet of poetry, it is a myth to say that a poem needs to be read aloud to do the poetic techniques justice. For the physical body, there are many similarities between reading a poem in your head and reading it aloud. People sound the words out to themselves in both instances. Similarly, the body reacts in the same way to the words. The rhythms found in poetry do not need to be spoken to be present. It is a part of the body. It is present in the rhythmic pulses of the blood pumping around the body. People do not need to read poetry aloud to appreciate the rhythm of poetry. Therefore, is it still necessary to claim that poetry is an oral art form?
See, I absolutely love reading poetry - I think there is something so personal about it, and listening to someone else's interpretation of how it should sound just doesn't do the poem justice for me....
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Jen. I think in poetry that is recorded there is also a tendency to have middle-aged men orate it. Personally, I find something unappealing about that. I also think that 90 percent of people don't know how to read poetry properly. They always over emphasise words.
ReplyDeletePeople love to share something they find special, like a book or movie they enjoyed. so too, if a poem speaks to them, they want to share with someone they know would appreciate it also, so it becomes oral.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that is one of the arguments that is going on at the moment. Just because something is read aloud or is spoken, does that make it oral? What makes a poem oral? Is there such a thing as oral poetry and not oral poetry?
ReplyDeleteI agree with jen. I believe poetry to be very personal. The writer creates it through his/her personal thoughts/issues/believes/life experience. The idea of poetry is not so much it being performed but to interpret it the way you personally believe it should be interpreted. If someone else inerprets it for you, the poem can lose all meaning.
ReplyDelete