T.C. Boyle once said that “Most writers are writers because they are introverts who have chosen a profession in which they don’t have to deal with anyone.” While it may be painful for them to be out in the public eye, it shouldn’t be painful for people to listen to them read from their books — but all too often, it is.
I would add: Love your poem (in my case). (It's the ancestor of "don't apologize.") Read it with the care and sense of joy and dread you had when you wrote/revised it. Cherish each word, each comma and line break. Act like you own those words
Yes, we need to own our words and respect our audience. And only read something we love, because that will be delivered with care, compassion, and expertise.
Excellent advice. May I add that Zoom needs yet another dimension of advice? I have been present at Zoom readings where the quality of the sound was so poor that I couldn't understand the reader; where the camera was pointed up so that the reader's chin and mouth were not visible, and the audience was looking up the reader's nostrils; where the room was pitch dark, including the reader's face; where the lighting was from behind or at a peculiar angle, not becoming to the reader. To a performer, staging is of critical importance. Tech issues should not be ignored.
I have to say I have not done Zoom readings during the pandemic because as a seasoned reader and teacher, I need the feel of the room. I need to feel the interaction.
I also like to check out the live venue in advance, even briefly, in case there's something off: lights too bright, lectern too far from the audience or whatever.
The influence of the pandemic was destructive in so many ways. Instead of eating out, getting cold, soggy take-out food? Not being able to give hugs to friends? Not being able to shop in person & ascertain the quality of what you are buying? Yes, and not being able to actually converse with your audience without a thousand flattened faces watching. So important to be a real 3 dimensional person and not a bot in a box.
I couldn't agree more. I had theater experience before I taught and both gave me the thrill of working with and on an audience. Last Sunday I did a local reading with 25 in the room and 14 on Zoom. I was able to read the room, but could not read all those tiles anywhere near as well.
I just attended a library Zoom seminar and could not understand a word the speaker was saying. Unable and unwilling to read CC at a seminar, I signed out. It was disappointing, as it was information in which I was interested.
Maybe a useful way of improving readings is to speak up when noting problems. It has long been a practice at live readings to cup the hand behind the ear and call out to the speaker, "louder, please!" and the like. The problem is that it seems rude to interrupt people, especially on Zoom, but even in person. On Zoom, how does one say, "Clearer, please! Can't understand you!"
That's what the chat on the side of the Zoom is for. Typically I've seen that there is one person in charge of technology who can make volume adjustments or clue the reader into a needed change.
That sounds really frustrating. In the reading I just did last Sunday there were people in addition to the live audience, but their tiles were on an iPad too far away for me to see if they had questions.
Besides writing & publishing poetry, I teach yoga. It is now de rigueur to teach in person, and on video simultaneously. The teacher's attention must veer between the people on the laptop screen and the people present in the studio. Like a tennis match with twenty people on each side of the net, with 40 balls and racquets. So much for Patanjali's "single pointed focus!"
Excellent points. Thank you. I would only add that if you are reading poetry, please avoid the "poet's voice." It drives people crazy, and it doesn't make work more poetic. Stylization can be brilliant. Joseph Brodsky tended toward a chant when he read his work, and his readings were amazing. But, Auden, whose poems were strongly metered like Brodsky's, read in a very conversational style. The conversational style, essentially reading against the meter, is the one I prefer. For cadenced poems, as opposed to metered, there's not much excuse to depart from a conversational voice. The best advice I can give anyone reading their poems is to listen to the poem while reading it. That way, the audience will hear what you hear, without dramatizing or unnatural pacing. A lot of readers speed up because of the stress. (Message to the audience: "I want to get out of here!") If you listen to the poem as you read, this is far less likely to happen. Ultimately, the style of the reading depends on the material being read. Etheridge Knight was one of the best readers I've heard, and he read in his own stylized way, but it suited his work. Joanne Kyger was also quite a performer of her poems. Some work is more suited to performance than others. The way you know how to read/perform your work is by listening to it. This post is solely directed to reading poems. I know absolutely nothing about reading fiction or non-fiction. Thanks again!
OMG, in my MFA program, there were poets who read in a singsong that was maddening. Listening to them was instructive, though, because it was a lesson in how *not* to do a reading.
Exactly. I think it comes from a lack of confidence in your own work. You worry it's not strong enough, so you jazz it up with that singsong style, which can be applied regardless of cadence or lack thereof. To be fair to these folks, though, they're not without good company. I love Yeats' poems, but I hate the way Yeats read in the recordings he made of those poems. He was asked about how strongly he emphasized the meter, and replied that he'd worked really hard to get the meters and wasn't about to deemphasize them. (The exact quote is out there somewhere.) To me, that sort of thing reminds me of over-the-top 19th century acting as described by Dickens. Not something I think I would have enjoyed.
You're welcome! Poetry, fiction, CNF have something in common: You need sprezzatura, the art that conceals all art (thank you, Castiglione!). It should flow without effort and hide the effort you've put into it.
These are great points - although there are some who read in their own "poet's voice" who I could listen to all day. Tim Green at Rattle is one. (I'll use his reading style as an archetype here.) He reads in a fairly narrow range of affect but somehow the poems always come through - whether he's reading one of his own, a random open mic poem or and established poet's.
I think the reason is that he is clearly paying attention to what is one the page. It's his breath and cadence that conveys so much of what appears - the line breaks, the white space, the slant rhymes, etc.
Your examples are great. For me personally, I normally need more cues when listening. And as a reader, I deliver more cues - including hand gestures and facial expressions - neither as contrived devices, but because that's what I feel. (If you saw me at my desk, revising and reading aloud, you would see the same!)
I didn't say these 5 tips were the only things that make a good reading, but they're a foundation.
I don't encourage people to gesture because sometimes it can come off as artificial if they're planned. I think that the gestures can flow organically from the piece, and then there are some people who don't need them because their voices are so subtle and varied.
If I'm listening to a literary reading, and the poet / author keeps repeating "ummm," after the 3rd "ummm" I'm gone. Sorry but it means the individual did not rehearse, was unprepared, and is lazy or clueless.
Another thing to avoid is holding a book up to the computer screen to show off an inside page. It's awkward, interrupts the flow, and the drawing (or whatever) will be hard to see. If artwork, etc. needs to be displayed, print it out on a separate sheet, please, and hold up a clear flat copy.
Actors rehearse; wordsmiths ought to, too. Be memorable - - for the right reasons. :-)
I agree 100%. I was at a group reading with over 1,000 in the audience and one writer actually held up the journal where she made notes for the book she was reading from. How many people could see those pages?
I think this would go over well with younger students particularly, to have someone come in and just starting speaking to them, no fumbling with books or papers. A reminder of the oral tradition and all that jazz.
If you read something short enough and often enough like my friend in the piece, whether fiction or creative nonfiction, you can memorize it.
I did several book tours for my memoir My Germany and almost always read the Prologue and learned it in English *and* German well enough to ad lib some lines.
I was on my college forensics team for two years, way back when, and while I didn't win anything, I did learn how to modify text for readings. I also was a lector during my church days, and, again, went through training.
These points are excellent. I've done quite a few readings of my work and I do enjoy performing them. But I will practice my readings, time them, and have a couple of just-in-case length options should something happen to the alloted time I have for readings.
Great advice. I also mark up my text before reading with symbols for where I should slow down or emphasize a word or a phrase or where I need to pause. It's like notating a musical score. No one else would probably know what the marking mean, but it really helps when the time comes to perform the story.
I did some notations in the early years but found they held me back because each reading had different energy (venue, crowd, how I felt) and I liked varying the readings so that they would feel "new." I never read the same story or essay the same way twice, and practicing the reading (and timing it) often enough took the place of notations. And if I was on a book tour and had half a dozen or more readings in a row, then each one taught me something more than I already knew, and could change the next one.
I'm glad they were helpful. One thing to keep in mind: the more readings you do, the more comfortable you'll be doing them, and when you have an off day (or evening), it'll be the exception.
This is good advice, though the thought of anyone being offered a 30-minuter slot appals me! Most readings are deadly, stilted affairs, even when one (or more) of those reading reads well. I wonder how much printed matter is ever shifted by the reading part of a reading, rather than the 'event' itself.
Some people are naturally good readers, some, it seems naturally awful. It surprises me when writers are bad readers - haven't they been hearing what they're writing in their mind's ear? Haven't they been reading it aloud to check how it sounds?
30 minute slots are pretty common at science fiction conventions. That means, in reality, about 20 minutes of actual reading time, with a backup cutoff at the 15 minute point. Too many people think that "30 minutes" means just that--and it doesn't.
You raise something really important even for writers who want to avoid readings: reading your work aloud can help you fix mistakes, smooth rhythms and much more.
I can hold an audience for thirty minutes with a reading, but I'd rather go shorter. Less is more. People enjoy being read to well, but it takes concentration to listen.
Funny story from my first Zoom reading. Lighting was good, framed my head well, had my text printed out oversized for easy reading. To avoid the dreaded “looking down” syndrome, I set my pages on a stand just to the left of my IPad. Thought it had gone flawlessly, until the reading was posted on YouTube a few days later. Because I was constantly looking off to the side, I looked decidedly shifty. Would anyone buy a used car from this guy? Won’t do that again!
This is one reason I prefer a live audience, as it were: the awkwardness of Zoom doesn't impede my flow. I need to connect in person and feel the room, and I also need my text as an anchor, no matter how well I know it.
I would add: Love your poem (in my case). (It's the ancestor of "don't apologize.") Read it with the care and sense of joy and dread you had when you wrote/revised it. Cherish each word, each comma and line break. Act like you own those words
Yes, we need to own our words and respect our audience. And only read something we love, because that will be delivered with care, compassion, and expertise.
I'm the Managing Editor of Pangyrus Lit Mag and this is a post I'm going to save to share with readers before events! Very solid advice. Thanks!
Cool! I hope they enjoy it. They can read more of my most recent essays here: https://www.levraphael.com/essays.html
Excellent advice. May I add that Zoom needs yet another dimension of advice? I have been present at Zoom readings where the quality of the sound was so poor that I couldn't understand the reader; where the camera was pointed up so that the reader's chin and mouth were not visible, and the audience was looking up the reader's nostrils; where the room was pitch dark, including the reader's face; where the lighting was from behind or at a peculiar angle, not becoming to the reader. To a performer, staging is of critical importance. Tech issues should not be ignored.
I have to say I have not done Zoom readings during the pandemic because as a seasoned reader and teacher, I need the feel of the room. I need to feel the interaction.
I also like to check out the live venue in advance, even briefly, in case there's something off: lights too bright, lectern too far from the audience or whatever.
The influence of the pandemic was destructive in so many ways. Instead of eating out, getting cold, soggy take-out food? Not being able to give hugs to friends? Not being able to shop in person & ascertain the quality of what you are buying? Yes, and not being able to actually converse with your audience without a thousand flattened faces watching. So important to be a real 3 dimensional person and not a bot in a box.
I couldn't agree more. I had theater experience before I taught and both gave me the thrill of working with and on an audience. Last Sunday I did a local reading with 25 in the room and 14 on Zoom. I was able to read the room, but could not read all those tiles anywhere near as well.
I just attended a library Zoom seminar and could not understand a word the speaker was saying. Unable and unwilling to read CC at a seminar, I signed out. It was disappointing, as it was information in which I was interested.
Maybe a useful way of improving readings is to speak up when noting problems. It has long been a practice at live readings to cup the hand behind the ear and call out to the speaker, "louder, please!" and the like. The problem is that it seems rude to interrupt people, especially on Zoom, but even in person. On Zoom, how does one say, "Clearer, please! Can't understand you!"
That's what the chat on the side of the Zoom is for. Typically I've seen that there is one person in charge of technology who can make volume adjustments or clue the reader into a needed change.
That sounds really frustrating. In the reading I just did last Sunday there were people in addition to the live audience, but their tiles were on an iPad too far away for me to see if they had questions.
Besides writing & publishing poetry, I teach yoga. It is now de rigueur to teach in person, and on video simultaneously. The teacher's attention must veer between the people on the laptop screen and the people present in the studio. Like a tennis match with twenty people on each side of the net, with 40 balls and racquets. So much for Patanjali's "single pointed focus!"
My brother teaches yoga but I haven't asked if he does it live + video.
I bet your brother will have a lot to say about it if you ask him!!!
Excellent points. Thank you. I would only add that if you are reading poetry, please avoid the "poet's voice." It drives people crazy, and it doesn't make work more poetic. Stylization can be brilliant. Joseph Brodsky tended toward a chant when he read his work, and his readings were amazing. But, Auden, whose poems were strongly metered like Brodsky's, read in a very conversational style. The conversational style, essentially reading against the meter, is the one I prefer. For cadenced poems, as opposed to metered, there's not much excuse to depart from a conversational voice. The best advice I can give anyone reading their poems is to listen to the poem while reading it. That way, the audience will hear what you hear, without dramatizing or unnatural pacing. A lot of readers speed up because of the stress. (Message to the audience: "I want to get out of here!") If you listen to the poem as you read, this is far less likely to happen. Ultimately, the style of the reading depends on the material being read. Etheridge Knight was one of the best readers I've heard, and he read in his own stylized way, but it suited his work. Joanne Kyger was also quite a performer of her poems. Some work is more suited to performance than others. The way you know how to read/perform your work is by listening to it. This post is solely directed to reading poems. I know absolutely nothing about reading fiction or non-fiction. Thanks again!
OMG, in my MFA program, there were poets who read in a singsong that was maddening. Listening to them was instructive, though, because it was a lesson in how *not* to do a reading.
Exactly. I think it comes from a lack of confidence in your own work. You worry it's not strong enough, so you jazz it up with that singsong style, which can be applied regardless of cadence or lack thereof. To be fair to these folks, though, they're not without good company. I love Yeats' poems, but I hate the way Yeats read in the recordings he made of those poems. He was asked about how strongly he emphasized the meter, and replied that he'd worked really hard to get the meters and wasn't about to deemphasize them. (The exact quote is out there somewhere.) To me, that sort of thing reminds me of over-the-top 19th century acting as described by Dickens. Not something I think I would have enjoyed.
I think you're right, and lack of confidence (and technique) can make people turn readings into a mild ordeal for the audience.
You're welcome! Poetry, fiction, CNF have something in common: You need sprezzatura, the art that conceals all art (thank you, Castiglione!). It should flow without effort and hide the effort you've put into it.
These are great points - although there are some who read in their own "poet's voice" who I could listen to all day. Tim Green at Rattle is one. (I'll use his reading style as an archetype here.) He reads in a fairly narrow range of affect but somehow the poems always come through - whether he's reading one of his own, a random open mic poem or and established poet's.
I think the reason is that he is clearly paying attention to what is one the page. It's his breath and cadence that conveys so much of what appears - the line breaks, the white space, the slant rhymes, etc.
Your examples are great. For me personally, I normally need more cues when listening. And as a reader, I deliver more cues - including hand gestures and facial expressions - neither as contrived devices, but because that's what I feel. (If you saw me at my desk, revising and reading aloud, you would see the same!)
I didn't say these 5 tips were the only things that make a good reading, but they're a foundation.
I don't encourage people to gesture because sometimes it can come off as artificial if they're planned. I think that the gestures can flow organically from the piece, and then there are some people who don't need them because their voices are so subtle and varied.
Great advice with lots of specific examples. Thanks!
Thanks! I had fun writing it and sharing what I've learned on the road--in many countries. :-)
If I'm listening to a literary reading, and the poet / author keeps repeating "ummm," after the 3rd "ummm" I'm gone. Sorry but it means the individual did not rehearse, was unprepared, and is lazy or clueless.
Another thing to avoid is holding a book up to the computer screen to show off an inside page. It's awkward, interrupts the flow, and the drawing (or whatever) will be hard to see. If artwork, etc. needs to be displayed, print it out on a separate sheet, please, and hold up a clear flat copy.
Actors rehearse; wordsmiths ought to, too. Be memorable - - for the right reasons. :-)
Yes! Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.
I agree 100%. I was at a group reading with over 1,000 in the audience and one writer actually held up the journal where she made notes for the book she was reading from. How many people could see those pages?
The best tip I've ever received, "Love your words."
Love them, believe in them, and *know* them--because how else can you move your audience?
i sometimes read poems i am working on with a creative group.. some good suggestions here, esp. do not apologize...
That's definitely one way to rehearse.
Dana Gioia suggested memorizing at least some of the poems that you’ll be reading. Then it’s a recital, not just a reading.
Here he is reciting one of his well-known short poems, “Money”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBiW4IWwRgc
I think this would go over well with younger students particularly, to have someone come in and just starting speaking to them, no fumbling with books or papers. A reminder of the oral tradition and all that jazz.
If you read something short enough and often enough like my friend in the piece, whether fiction or creative nonfiction, you can memorize it.
I did several book tours for my memoir My Germany and almost always read the Prologue and learned it in English *and* German well enough to ad lib some lines.
I was on my college forensics team for two years, way back when, and while I didn't win anything, I did learn how to modify text for readings. I also was a lector during my church days, and, again, went through training.
These points are excellent. I've done quite a few readings of my work and I do enjoy performing them. But I will practice my readings, time them, and have a couple of just-in-case length options should something happen to the alloted time I have for readings.
The key is to be aware that it is a performance.
It's good to have a Plan B!
For poets, participate in open mics and readings. I do this a couple of times a month. It is good practice, usually in front of a supportive audience.
Excellent idea.
Great advice. I also mark up my text before reading with symbols for where I should slow down or emphasize a word or a phrase or where I need to pause. It's like notating a musical score. No one else would probably know what the marking mean, but it really helps when the time comes to perform the story.
Thanks. That can work.
I did some notations in the early years but found they held me back because each reading had different energy (venue, crowd, how I felt) and I liked varying the readings so that they would feel "new." I never read the same story or essay the same way twice, and practicing the reading (and timing it) often enough took the place of notations. And if I was on a book tour and had half a dozen or more readings in a row, then each one taught me something more than I already knew, and could change the next one.
Thank you for these super-helpful tips. I’m a newbie as far as public readings and will definitely use this at an upcoming event next month.
I'm glad they were helpful. One thing to keep in mind: the more readings you do, the more comfortable you'll be doing them, and when you have an off day (or evening), it'll be the exception.
And let’s not forget the example of Amanda Gorman’s reading from two years ago tomorrow. No stage fright there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ055ilIiN4
Patrick Gillespie over at Poem Shape looked at the many interesting rhetorical devices she used. Well worth the read:
https://poemshape.wordpress.com/2021/02/12/a-brief-look-at-amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem/
Yes! I coach writers and I recommend they study her on video because she's confident, clear, resonant, magnetic. She is a terrific performer.
This is good advice, though the thought of anyone being offered a 30-minuter slot appals me! Most readings are deadly, stilted affairs, even when one (or more) of those reading reads well. I wonder how much printed matter is ever shifted by the reading part of a reading, rather than the 'event' itself.
Some people are naturally good readers, some, it seems naturally awful. It surprises me when writers are bad readers - haven't they been hearing what they're writing in their mind's ear? Haven't they been reading it aloud to check how it sounds?
30 minute slots are pretty common at science fiction conventions. That means, in reality, about 20 minutes of actual reading time, with a backup cutoff at the 15 minute point. Too many people think that "30 minutes" means just that--and it doesn't.
You raise something really important even for writers who want to avoid readings: reading your work aloud can help you fix mistakes, smooth rhythms and much more.
I can hold an audience for thirty minutes with a reading, but I'd rather go shorter. Less is more. People enjoy being read to well, but it takes concentration to listen.
Funny story from my first Zoom reading. Lighting was good, framed my head well, had my text printed out oversized for easy reading. To avoid the dreaded “looking down” syndrome, I set my pages on a stand just to the left of my IPad. Thought it had gone flawlessly, until the reading was posted on YouTube a few days later. Because I was constantly looking off to the side, I looked decidedly shifty. Would anyone buy a used car from this guy? Won’t do that again!
This is one reason I prefer a live audience, as it were: the awkwardness of Zoom doesn't impede my flow. I need to connect in person and feel the room, and I also need my text as an anchor, no matter how well I know it.