This is more in the nature of an off-hand comment:...

2008-03-13T08:25:00.000+05:30

This is more in the nature of an off-hand comment:

I think most people come to readings because 1) they're friends of the poet(s); 2) they want to gawp at this strange animal called poetry; 3) they want to include themselves in some perceived inner circle.

I've also found that many poets are a fairly paranoid lot, afraid to show much of their work to each other, suspicious and secretive. How can there be community under such circumstances? I'd like to think it's because opportunities are few; but I suspect it's because we're not used to giving or receiving informed critique, and so rely on, as Vivek says, editorial commentaries.

You know, I may be just old-fashioned, but going t...

2008-03-06T20:08:00.000+05:30

You know, I may be just old-fashioned, but going through all these posts, I can't help noticing the absence of a little thing I like to call reading. When did the primary means of engagement with poetry become listening to it read aloud (and yes, yes, I know all about the Welsh bards)? And why is the relevant competition songs or movies or other media and not, well, books?

I think we should be careful about confuting a (alleged) general disinterest in poetry and the lack of attendance at poetry readings. I don't much care for poetry readings myself, mostly because I still prefer to engage with the poem in its written form, but also partly because in my (limited) experience audiences at these things can be annoying. So maybe the question we need to be asking is not how we can get more people (or a better quality of people) to readings, but what other means we can use to help poetry reach a wider audience.

Even if you believe that poets must have listeners and must engage with society through the spoken word, I think Vivek's distinction between an audience and a community is an important one. I'm not entirely sure why poets need a 'community' as some of these posts seem to envision it. As I see it, a poet (or at least a young poet) needs an audience - preferably large, ideally engaged - and, perhaps, a small group of fellow poets to share one's work with / exchange feedback. A 'community' is useful if it provides the kind of engagement that Vivek describes, but I'm not sure poetry readings are the right forum to get at that - I think it's hard to exchange honest, thoughtful feedback in a room full of strangers, many of whose credibility as informed readers of poetry is open to question.

So, on the whole, I'd say a tighter definition of what the 'reading' is supposed to achieve, and perhaps the evolution of different kinds of public fora, would be useful. It's interesting, for instance, that Priya focuses on Adil's commentary of Arvind, and how that could have been an insightful learning experience. I agree it would have been. But it's not the sort of thing I would have expected at a book launch. The point is that rather than trying to cram everything into the one size fits all category of 'readings' maybe we need to distinguish between public readings which are primarily a way for a poet / poets to promote his / her work to an audience, book launches, public panels that are meant to offer new insights into the field (not only insights into how to write poetry, but, more importantly I think, on how to read it) perhaps with more accomplished poets discussing other people's work, and small-form workshops where people can discuss / exchange feedback. I know that the Caferati folks already do some of this at Kala Ghoda, and I think the key is to recognize that each one of those forms is a different entity, has different objectives (and potentially a different target audience) and lies at a different point on the audience-community continuum.

Finally, I have to echo Vivek's perception of poetry readings in Bombay. I can't claim to have been a particularly avid attendee at poetry readings when I was in Bombay, but the few I did attend were very uninspiring - the poetry was ordinary and the discussion, if one can call it that, vapidly polite. That may have changed, of course, (I've been away four years now) and I may just have got a bad draw, but I think for many people there's a perception that poetry readings in Bombay tend to be celebrations of the mediocre. And frankly, the idea of a 50 poets 50 poems anthology inspires little confidence. Even assuming there are 50 poets on the Indian poetry scene worth reading (which I'm afraid I don't believe) the notion of engaging with a poet's work by reading a single poem is one I can't begin to take seriously. The point is that if you want more genuine poetry-lovers to be involved in these readings you're going to need to send a clearer signal of quality. Obviously, I can't say how that's to be done. But personally, I'm much more likely to go for the launch of a book that featured extensive selections from the work of three new poets than a 50 poets 50 poems anthology.

Comments on caferati: Poetry audiences - a discussion [Part 7]

This is more in the nature of an off-hand comment:...

You know, I may be just old-fashioned, but going t...