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?
