REMEMBER, no class on Friday: instead, you could go to the
Scissortail Creative Writing Festival which starts at 9:30 and continues at 11:00 ,
2:00 , 3:00
and 7:00 . Here is the entire schedule
for Thursday-Saturday, so you can find a time that suits you: http://ecuscissortail.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-scissortail-schedule-of-readings.html
If you attend a session, answer
THE QUESTIONS (answer all 4):
Q1: Which of the authors interested you the most and why?
Why did you respond their poems and/or story and why might you read more from
this author?
Q2: Which piece (if any) did you find difficult to follow or
understand and why? Is is simply not your kind of material, or was it too
vulgar, or depressing, or confusing? If you liked all the pieces you heard by
each writer, answer this instead: how did each author's reading work together
as a whole? Why did these 3 (or 4) writers work well together? Was there any
common themes or ideas that seemed to link them together?
Q3: Discuss briefly how the authors presented their
material: their reading style, introductions, gestures, and other details that
helped you appreciate the stories/poems. In other words, how did the authors
help you understand their work through their performance?
Q4: How did the audience react to these authors/works? Did
certain works get more response than others--and if so, why? Did people laugh?
Were they completely silent. Did people seem to 'get' these writers, or did some
leave them scratching their heads? How could you tell?
1. I liked listening to Kerri Vinson Snell in the North Lounge. Not sure if I just like the tone of her poetry or if I was hooked from the moment she referred to her style as "life, death, and Oklahoma."
ReplyDelete2. I only stayed long enough to see two poets (I'm so congested I might explode and couldn't stay longer than thirty minutes) but the first one was kind of...different. Seemed like he knew what he was talking about but I was not following his first poem at all. His name was Steven Schroeder. He was kind of dark; talking about his father was about the only thing I could grasp. I think, like he said before he spoke, he was introducing the dark poetry and letting his fellow speakers bring in the happier uplifting things.
3. The first author, Steven, read straight from his book. Makes sense because if you have a book full of poetry, you ought to read from it. For the second reader, Kerri read from pieces of paper which seemed less professional. I can't expect everyone to have a full book of poetry in their purse. He was very physically into his work; moving his hands and arms and things like that. Not dramatically but he was appropriate for the setting. The woman seemed either nervous or timid or just less motivated. I would have been more like her, honestly.
4. Steven's work got more response because he had a few funny lines here and there and his words were really colorful. I didn't understand the humor because I was listening for a message, not at each individual line. People laughed, though. I thought he was going to cry at one point. Partially because he said the last one choked him up and partially because he warned us that it might happen again. I didn't get him but like I said I don't think I was listening right.
-Morgan Kovar. (I'm on a school computer. My bad.)
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ1) My favorite author was Clarence Wolfshohl. His voice had such a natural flow to it as he read his works. He began his reading with the work "American Romance" which humorously pointed out how the only romance left in this technological and lazy nation can be found in the criminal couples who wreak havoc on innocent citizens just to enjoy each other's company. The works which moved me most were "Glass Heart" and "Where To Next?" He wrote these about his dead wife, whose ashes he carries around to their memorable places and sprinkles a bit in each spot. "Glass Heart" brought tears to my eyes as he serenaded the little glass heart which holds his wife's remains. He began with "I keep three tablespoons of you in a glass heart." It was poignant, moving, but still peaceful, as if he knew that his wife's spirit still lives in that glass heart. I would definitely read more of this author, because his works were subtly powerful with the ability to move the audience.
Q2) I did not particularly enjoy the works of Sally Rhoades. It may have been the way that she read; she stuck to a rhythm that was so strict I was not able to stop seeing the poem’s structure in my head and simply listen. All her poems were written in a confusing way that I was not able to follow. They were very conceptual with words scattered here and there, so that I struggled to find a storyline to follow. This is simply my personal preference, however. I respect her as an artist and was impressed by the list of works and accomplishments which she has under her belt.
Q3) All the authors helped us understand their works by introducing them and giving us a brief background of why they had written them. They introduced them to varying degrees. Sally Rhoades gave a brief overview of where each of her works came from, so that we could understand what they were based on. Clarence Wolfshohl told us the background of his works so that we would understand why he had written them. Especially when he introduced his two works “Glass Heart” and “Where To Next?” he gave us a thorough background on his wife and why he carries her ashes with him. Yvonne Carpenter told us how she grew up on a farm and that many of her works were based on that. None of the poets did any gestures, but they had very good and natural reading styles.
Q4) The audience liked all three authors, but I believe they enjoyed Clarence Wolfshohl the best. After many of the works by all three authors, the audience politely clapped. Often some of the members murmured in admiration. After a few of the sadder and more moving works, there was silence. Wolfshohl received a loud round of applause after he finished his entire reading, and it was obvious that the audience respected him and was in awe of him.
Elyse Marquardt
Ashley Bean
ReplyDelete1. My favorite author was Andrew Geyer. He read his short story, “Pink Elephants,” which was full of allusions to Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” I remember reading this Hemingway story several times throughout middle school to today, so I understood all of the references in Geyer’s story. “Pink Elephants” was one of those stories where you can picture everything: the setting, the nameless characters to minute detail. It reads like a film playing in your head. I really like the way he revealed the plot slowly, but it didn’t drag. You almost don’t like the professor until he tells his own pink elephant story, where his daughter killed herself. I’m not sure what the rest of his work is like, but I would definitely read it. I like finding allusions to other works, and I bet he does it in more works as well.
2. Although I loved her, Shaun Perkins’ work I didn’t understand as well as the authors. Looking back, I don’t remember her pieces as well. This could be because she didn’t give any introductions to her poems, so they fluidly ran into each other. It was difficult for me to follow, though I do remember laughing and smiling a lot. I know her poems were enjoyable, they just didn’t stick with me like the other ones did.
3. The thing that stood out the most about the presentation of the works I saw was Shaun Perkins’ memorization of her works. Since she wasn’t confined to the podium, she could make eye contact and use gestures freely. She truly acted out her pieces and the audience could catch the humor and sarcasm much better with her actions. She didn’t give any introduction to the pieces; she went directly from one to the next. Andrew Geyer was more plain, but then again his work was prose and couldn’t necessarily be memorized. He had a clear voice and wasn’t monotone, so it was easy to follow his story too. He introduced the work as a direct allusion to Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” Although I would have caught it myself, it was nice to have that knowledge before his reading. Jenny Yang Cropp read her poetry off the page, and yet she didn’t seem restricted by it. She would stop between each piece and give a brief introduction, and it made her works more enjoyable.
4. I heard lots of laughs and “mmhm’s” throughout the crowd during each of the author’s pieces. Whether it was something deep, such as Cropp’s struggles with identity, or funny, such as Perkins’ sarcasm. I think everyone responded well to the author’s, everyone seemed engaged. There was no head scratching from what I could tell. I noticed there was a lot of head nodding, which suggests that people were following along really well.
1.) An author that really interested me was Shaun Perkins. She was light hearted and her poetry was detailed. I think the most interesting thing she did that made me like her poetry so much was that she did everything from memorization. She never had to look at her poems. It just made me wonder how many poems she had to have memorized or if she ever screwed up reading them. I think I focused so much on her presentation that I forgot much of her actual poetry; but it was certainly fascinating that she would recite over eight poems straight from memory.
ReplyDelete2.) One person whose poetry I was not a fan of was Sarah Webb. I am not sure if it’s because she had to go after I guy that was very funny and interesting that she was just disappointing or what. I think I just did not understand the concept of Rock. Maybe if I had some background history of who/what the rock stood for it would make more sense to me. Or, maybe if I had read all the poems that went with Rock I could make more sense of it. Her humor and seriousness blended together well, however, it was very spotty on what was interesting and what was not.
3.) I feel like everybody that presented did a fairly good job. I absolutely loved how Shaun Perkins presented her poetry. You could tell it was something she was very passionate about. You could tell that certain people were very nervous as well. I think that may be a reason I was not as interested in Sarah’s poetry. She seemed a bit nervous and uncomfortable almost. I think you could tell a big difference between those who were nervous and uncomfortable and those who were not and owned it. I think that understanding an artist work is definitely mostly in how they present it. I know that when Hank Jones was reading his work, there were some fluctuations that he put on words that I know if I had been reading it I wouldn’t have put there. So the way they read it, if it was smooth or choppy really helped me understand their poetry.
4.) I think that Hank Jones did a wonderful job in giving a preface to what he was writing and what it was all about. It felt that the audience could really connect with him and understand his work because of it. Having a little background we could see why certain lines and symbols meant more to him than others. I think the poem he wrote about his good friend really allowed the audience to connect because it made them think about their best friend when they read it. Or at least it did to me. He was comical and fun to listen to so people were clapping and laughing during his session. When Sarah Webb came on she had a different feel to her poetry so she received more light head nods and “ahh” feelings. I think each writer connected to a different type of audience.
Q1: I absolutely adored Sarah Webb. Her stories seemed so simple, yet they carried such a powerful message. Rock and Friends is important, in that it challenges us to remember our connection with the natural world in a way that matters. It illustrates that nothing on earth is without importance, whether it be a rock, a coyote, or a little girl. In addition, I connected with Sarah's modest personality. She approached her reading not with grandiose humor or unnecessary speech, but instead she was thoughtful and calculated in her reading. Her voice was soft and soothing, and it left me feeling just as I would have if I were out for a walk in a serene pasture.
ReplyDeleteQ2: While Sarah was by far my favorite reader of the three sessions I attended, I could also appreciate the other writers that read with her. I'm not a fan of vulgarity, and Hank Jones was a little too strong for me. Robert Broyles was soft-spoken and his poetry captured my interest. Between the three, I noticed a common theme of relationships. Whether it was between Rock and Coyote, Hank and his friends, or men and women, each poet had something unique to say about the significance of our ties to others.
Q3: Naomi Shihab Nye did a wonderful job of introducing her poems. She usually explained why she wrote them, ranging from assignments to challenges to a need for release. With that context in hand, it was easier for me to understand some of her more complicated poetry. Her reading style also contributed to the mood in the room. Many of her poems were quite funny. She would shout, laugh, or fall silent at certain points in the lines, with the audience immediately following. She was explosive, jubilant, and conversational throughout her session.
Q4: With Sarah's reading, most people were silent. I don't think this was because of a lack of interest, but rather it left them room for the thoughtful reflection needed to understand Rock and Friends. In Naomi's reading, however, the room would burst into laughter, grunt with agreement, and fall silent with sorrow depending on the poem she read. She had so much variety in her poetry that it kept the audience engaged through the entire session.