Find your next favourite story now
Login
Forum
Hello,
I was asking about technology in another discussion and said (offhand) that poetry is meant to be read aloud. Others (stuartryder) responded that that might not be particularly accurate. So I am coming to the poetry discussion board for answers. It seems like there are a myriad of ways to nuance this, and no two ways match up. Is the answer simply on or the other, "both", or "who cares"? Or is it to that, historically, poetry has been for the ear, and the modern convention of reading silently to oneself is, as far as I know, a new innovation in the world. Homer, Virgil, the author of Beowulf, the Psalms and wisdom books of the Bible, parts of the Q'uran, Shakespeare, ... this stuff was all read (or sung) aloud, and designed that way. But then I read novels and letters to myself, and so do (presumably) all of you, and we don't fumble around trying to justify that, even though that's just as new. But then poetry is not prose. Another way is to say none of that matters, whatever we do today is what matters, and many forms (concrete poetry, much of the stuff that is found online or even published in book form) is really meant to be read to oneself. But then are we missing out? It seems that most poetry will change and become more alive if we read it aloud. Sometimes what is on the page just sounds like garbled stupidity when you actually speak it. What if the best poetry is meant to be performed aloud?
Please help
I didn't find the right solution from the internet.
References:
Motion graphics video company
Thank you
I was asking about technology in another discussion and said (offhand) that poetry is meant to be read aloud. Others (stuartryder) responded that that might not be particularly accurate. So I am coming to the poetry discussion board for answers. It seems like there are a myriad of ways to nuance this, and no two ways match up. Is the answer simply on or the other, "both", or "who cares"? Or is it to that, historically, poetry has been for the ear, and the modern convention of reading silently to oneself is, as far as I know, a new innovation in the world. Homer, Virgil, the author of Beowulf, the Psalms and wisdom books of the Bible, parts of the Q'uran, Shakespeare, ... this stuff was all read (or sung) aloud, and designed that way. But then I read novels and letters to myself, and so do (presumably) all of you, and we don't fumble around trying to justify that, even though that's just as new. But then poetry is not prose. Another way is to say none of that matters, whatever we do today is what matters, and many forms (concrete poetry, much of the stuff that is found online or even published in book form) is really meant to be read to oneself. But then are we missing out? It seems that most poetry will change and become more alive if we read it aloud. Sometimes what is on the page just sounds like garbled stupidity when you actually speak it. What if the best poetry is meant to be performed aloud?
Please help
I didn't find the right solution from the internet.
References:
Motion graphics video company
Thank you
