The Week of Writing at Drexel University erupted today beginning with a Marathon Reading event. Writers who claimed victory in the preceeding Drexel Publishing contest were invited to read their works to a small audience.
The pieces themselves were very good, and there existed a nice representation of both prose and poetry.
What was most interesting to note, however, was the degree of leniency and difference readers took when reading their work. Some took on an informal position, often adding verbal asides in the middle of their work, such as ones that provided some background on inspirations for their works or opinions. Such asides are not present in the written text, and could be interpreted as an augmentation, that is some additional content, to the performance of reading the pieces not found in the act of reading the work.
Yet such "agumentation" undoubtedly detracts from a potential structuring of the readings as performances. These asides, though related, break the narrative, in essence disrupting immersion. I think there's a value to both, and certainly the writers who read today demonstrated the truth to such a sentiment, but I am perplexed upon which may be better. Are informational asides during a reading valuable, and offer something extra to the listener? Or is the experience more enjoyable when the piece is read without a break from the narration and particular vocal fluctuations to enhance the narratives pathos? Perhaps certain pieces, or authors even, are more suited to one of such reading practices more than the other?
It was an interesting event, not to mention a chance to hear some great writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment