Not bad Poetman,

not bad at all.

Poetman: Yes, definitely, there are other trump cards besides Homer, including that “In the beginning …”(And a sermon I heard last weekend reminded me that two books in the Bible actually have as their first words “In the beginning,” Genesis and John. It’s so odd that although I know both books, if I’d been a contestant on Jeopardy! and Alex had said, “These two books of the Bible begin with the same phrase” I’d probably have lost the money — I just never put the two together.)

Thank you so much for your kind words about my site, too. I’ve been having so much fun in the past few days with the “Philip Larkin/Harry Potter” title bout on the WordPress News Front Page. I would never, ever have predicted that this post (a 25- year-old quote about poetry!) would be as popular as it has been, especially this weekend.
Jan
Jan

As I am sure you know. (“In the beginning there was the word and the word was God” a word by the way that existed only as a sound for years and years – until various cultures invented written languages.)

All the math and engineering used to create Stone Hedge and other ancient marvels was passed from generation to generation in oral containers of sound.

A written word is our modern adaptation of a sound container. A folder if you will that when opened with breath will more fully reveal the mystery of what has been contained there.

We forget that written language is a limiter. Read the word “tree” for instance. The word “tree” is suppose to express the idea of all trees as they have existed for all time.

By the way Janice I apologize for not saying it earlier – oops, I mean writing it earlier – your site is awesome.

Thanks
Poetman

But you’re right. It does take courage to say what he said.

Tom: Okay, Homer is always the trump card on the spoken-versus-written issue. But I admit I admire Larkin’s courage in saying that he doesn’t like hearing things, “even music,” in public. It’s such a contrarian view … and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone express it. It may relate to what I said to Poetman. Maybe Larkin didn’t like hearing things in public partly because it might require him to show HIS emotions in public (as well as having to “screen out” others emotions).

It’s no accident that the greatest poet to ever grace this earth, did nothing but speak his poems aloud, and never put a single word to paper.

And allow me to preempt anyone who might be clever enough to respond to this with the phrase, “even Homer nods.”

Some further observations about Larkin’s quote.

A mass where a congregation was forced to read the liturgy and sermon so that they were “not missing things” would probably mean that there would be more people asleep in churches on Sundays.

As a child, if you had never ever heard language before being taught to read, you wouldn’t be able to read today.

My disagreement with Larkin is not that he places so much importance on the written word; it’s that he places so little importance on the spoken.

He writes that “poetry readings grew up on a false analogy with music.” What seems truer to me is that writing evolved as a means of preserving the sound and the cadence of poetry for future listening/reading.

Poetman

Your comment about how clunky all that “context” can get seems right on the mark to me. I’ve been to readings at which the poet gave so much context up front that it upstaged, clashed with or even defeated the purpose or the poem. For example, I’ve heard introductions to a poem that were much, much longer than the poem itself … which seems out of whack. If you give a very long introduction, the poem almost comes as an anti-climax. I wonder if it might be better for poets to provide the context after reading a poem if they want to add it? I’ve never seen that happen, but it might help to keep the intro from upstaging the poem. Thanks so much for such a thoughtful comment.
Jan

I do not think he is saying that poetry shouldn’t be read aloud or that voice isn’t important in poetry. (He goes on to say that you should be hearing his voice in the room with you!) I have heard many performances of poems that are beautiful and bring the poem to life, after I am very familiar with the poem itself–but I think the convention of the poetry reading, where a poet reads new work and the audience is expected to fully appreciate it on the first reading is overrated. I’m glad someone’s said something about it. Thanks for posting the quote!

Tom: Yes, there are quite a lot of geniuses like that, aren’t there? Glad you agree that Larkin ranks among them — he is one of my gods. I admire his Paris Review interview so much, I’m probably going to put up another quote from it by the end of the month, though I normally try to vary the sources of these.
Jan

Normally I would simply agree to disagree, but Larkin was so wrong, on so many levels, I can’t even do that. Go to youtube and see what I mean:

Four Quartets read by Willem Dafoe

Don’t you just love it when brilliant geniuses can’t see what you can? God I love it when that happens.

Tom Heehler

Punctuation is a paltry attempt at creating voice on a flat page.

Words are sound libraries and as such are closer to being music then Larkin gives them credit for.

Having written this I should also add that I write every day, and I struggle mightily to make the words I write sing like music in the ears of a potentially silent reader.

Voice is the king and queen of literature; forget that and the resonance of your own muse will surly be hushed as well.

Poetman