Remember, no class this Thursday/Friday: instead, you have the option to go to the Scissortail Creative Writing Festival. Here is a link to the schedule of readings: http://ecuscissortail.blogspot.com/2015/01/2015-scissortail-schedule-of-readings.html
Attend at least ONE session and respond to the questions below either on this post or bring it to class next week. You must answer ALL the questions for the extra credit, not just 2 of 4 as usual! :)
QUESTIONS FOR SCISSORTAIL SESSION:
1. Discuss the manner in which one of the authors presented his/her works. How did he/she read it, perform it, or explain it? How did this help you appreciate the work or understand it? Would you have responded to it the same way if you had encountered it in a book?
2. How do you feel the three works on the panel worked together? Were there any similar themes, subject matter, ideas, or points of view? Did one work help you understand another? Or did they clash in an interesting way? Why do you think these works were presented together?
3. How did the poet(s) read their works differently than the prose writer(s)? How does poetry read differently than prose (novels, stories, etc.)? Which performance did you find most interesting—the poetry or the prose? Why? Do you think it would be the same on the page?
4. Discuss one of the works that you responded strongly to—either with surprise, love, admiration, or even disgust. Why did the work evoke this response from you? Did other people in the audience seem to respond/react the same way? Did the author want this response—or do you think he/she might be surprised by it?
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: A. J. Tierney read her work "The Cell," which was based on her childhood friendship with a woman who later went to prison for second-degree attempted murder. Tierney's story was about her mother, who had stored up a collection of letters exchanged between herself and her friend Sarah who was in prison. The work was nothing which I had not heard before; many people write books which are mainly comprised of letters between the two main characters. But the way in which Tierney read her story was truly moving - gentle, calm, but with such strong conviction that could only be felt by someone who had personally experienced something very similar to what we were hearing. I definitely would not have responded as strongly to this story if I had merely been reading it on a page, for Tierney put all her heart and love and dedication into it as she spoke the words.
Question 2: The three works on the panel were total opposites to me. The first, Gary Worth Moody, had very darkly themed poems that painted vivid pictures of the mental and sometimes physical pain which racked people from various historical points and different walks of life. A. J. Tierney read a quiet, hopeful, faith-inspired story that seemed to be completely negating everything Moody had just presented; she was a refreshing change from the depressing things Moody had just read. And at the last, Alan Gann recited a collection of his works that had been inspired by the students whom he teaches. Many of his poems were light-hearted and funny, but causing us to see the familiar settings which he described in new ways. The three artists were completely different from each other, I thought, presenting us with a broad spectrum of the works which can be created.
Question 3: The poets read their works with a flow which prose does not contain. They seemed to pause after every line, as if to let the words which they had just spoken sink into our brains. The prose reader, on the other hand, simply moved along steadily, laying the words down as a painter lays down the background color. The poets were very specifically trying to get us to SEE their stories; the prose author was merely trying to convey an idea, and was content to let us arrive at our own conclusions after the fact. I found the prose more interesting because it had more "scope for the imagination," as Anne of Green Gables says; I was allowed to come up with my own imagery, instead of being forced to see exactly what the poets wanted me to see. I believe it would be the same on a page--I have always enjoyed reading prose more, although reading poetry is still a fun pastime.
Question 4: I really enjoyed Alan Gann's short work "Detention Ball." In it, he describes the way that Coach Johnson runs detention: by making his students learn how to waltz together! I responded so strongly because Gann did a fantastic job showing us the difference between the casual way that the students were used to interacting with one another, and this new and delicate manner in which they were not forced to behave. They were totally unfamiliar with it, and it made them very shy. It was a lovely little picture of two people being introduced to each other in a new way, seeing each other in a new setting, and perhaps coming to think of each other in a new light. I think several other people in the audience liked this work as well, because it had such a fresh, tender outlook. The author probably meant to make us react in this way, and I don't think he was disappointed in our response.
Ashlyn Thompson
ReplyDelete\Question 1: Steven Schroeder read some of his new poetry that I hadn't heard before. He had some serious poetry and some humorous ones as well. I don't think reading the book I would have felt the same as I did listening to it. Sometimes it was hard to determine whether it was funny or serious, but when he read it you could tell that it was something he had experienced personally. He read it with emotion, and laughed when necessary. The way that he spoke put you in that situation with him.
Question 4: I responded to a poem by Steven Schroeder titled, "Eclipse." It was a poem written as he was driving through Oklahoma. He talks about his experience here, what he saw, and what he felt. I think I was connected with this poem more than the others was because it was about my home state which caught my attention and the way that he portrayed the poem. Again, he put you right in Oklahoma if you hadn't been here before. He used such imagery that you could just imagine what it was like. I also responded to this the way I did because it was familiar things that I had seen and heard before which made me feel more comfortable and connected. The people around I think felt the same way. Through the poem they were very connected as well. Some of it was also very humorous, and kept the tension low in the room. I think Steven wanted the audience to be connected. When everyone responded like they did he smiled and laughed. I feel as if he had just as much fun with the poem as we did. He kept saying "If y'all enjoy these poems let me know and I'll publish them." He was looking for responses from the audience and after some of the poems that the audience really enjoyed they clapped and he smiled.
Ryan Jolly
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
Darrell Bourque did a great job of introducing and explaining his poems and read them very enthusiastically. Introducing the story behind why the poem was written made the perm much more interesting, simply because I could see it from the author's perspective. I don't believe that I would have responded this way had I read it in a book, mainly because I wouldn't have had any context as to why the poem was written or what the author was really trying to say.
Question 2:
The poems that Bourque read were similar in that most of them were based on memories of childhood or people that he grew up knowing. This helped me understand the poems because I began to see the full picture of Bourque's childhood. In addition, his poems centered around Canadians living in Louisiana and they had a touch of Cajun culture sprinkled throughout the poems.
Question 3:
Bourque seemed to read his poems almost like a book. It was interesting, but did not seem that much different than reading prose. Personally I enjoy the prose because it is easier to understand, however it is interesting to see the metaphors created during poetry. I do think that it would be the same for me on paper.
Question 4:
One of the works that I responded strongly to was Bourque's poem on Amede Ardoin, a man from Louisiana who refused to work in the fields because he had a dream to do something else. The reason that I responded to this is because I have been in a similar situation, not as extreme, but I would still relate to it. Everyone in the crowd seemed to respond similarly with applause, and I think that the author was looking for this.
Christian Beeler
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
Steven Schroeder had almost a comedic approach to the way he presented his works. This helped me understand what the poems meant that much more because as he read it, you could feel the emotion, and the back story he gave added to it that much more. I would not have responded the same had I read it myself. I would much rather listen to the author read their works anytime.
Question 2:
There was only one speaker during the time that I attended: Steven Schroeder.
Question 3:
Again, there was only one speaker during the time that I was there. It was only one poet reading his poetry so I am unable to counter the poetry with the prose.
Question 4:
He had a poem called, "Politics". I responded to this piece with complete disgust. There is so much politics in the world and he spoke of how the government was corrupt in politics as well as how present it is everywhere else. I could tell that the people around me felt the same way I did because of their mumbled moans of agreement. The author wanted us to respond this way because of how he wrote it and how he spoke it. You could feel the emotion in his voice.
1.) Rilla Askew did a wonderful job of being spunky and outgoing. How she presented her work was performed wonderfully and it was not difficult to follow. She explained it very well within her own work that she did not have to go into a deep discussion about it. Rilla talked about the tornadoes that have hit Oklahoma. One of the most recent tornadoes affected my family so I had a great appreciation for her short story. It reminded me that people do care and always will.
ReplyDelete2.) I feel that the three works came together very well. The second speaker was a little shaky and hard to understand but the first and last made up for it because they presented so well. As far as I can tell, the themes were actually all over the place. The first was about nature and the second had several different themes within his work and the third spoke of religion and he had a great way of presenting it without it being awkward. I think they were presented together because they were all so different it meshed well together.
3.) I felt that the prose readers were great at telling their story. It was interesting and very relevant. However, the poetry readers were fun to listen too, but since I am more of visual learner and need to actually see the poem, sometimes it was difficult to realize the symbolism and understand a few of the metaphors. It was still very fun to listen and try to learn. I probably enjoyed them more because they were able to pause and actually guide us to understanding.
4.) I really responded well to Alan Berecka simply because he was very interesting and you were unable to tell his perspective on certain elements within his poems. I liked how by hearing it you incorporated your own aspect to the metaphors within the poem. You’re able to create an image separate from the author but you also learn his perspective at the end. I was surprised at his use of religion within his poems. At times some of it seemed almost like it was making fun of religious aspects, but on his final poem you realize that it was coming from an atheist point of view rather than the authors. It makes you change your perspective for a moment or two. I think the author got exactly the reaction he wanted by that hint of shock and then understanding. Overall it was a wonderful festival and the times I did get to go I really enjoyed it.
Victoria Murray
ReplyDelete1. The author, Steven Schroeder, was very personable; he tried to be a little humorous in introducing his poetry. He explained to us that he hated long introductions and then stated that he was making one, this caused a bit of laughter through the audience. With his presentation of the work I was able to see a connection to everyday people and places with his works.
2. Each of his works seemed to consist of mostly metaphors and metaphors leading to a sense of emptiness and I guess a search of finding meaning to things around us as well as meaning for ourselves. I think he presented these works together because they each in a way connected people to a place or to many places even. They come together and help us feel like we can make a home out of any place or find that one place will be our one home.
3. With the prose writing the author just read. The prose writing was just trying to convey an idea and to let us come to a conclusion of our own about the writing. Poetry can be read with rhythm, dramatic pauses, and different dynamics in the speech. Prose writing can have that too, but it’s not as common as just reading the prose as a normal reading. I personally enjoyed the poetry more than the prose. I like the simplicity of the poem but with the simplicity is can carry so much depth when read in a tone that conveys such an emotion. If I had just come across these poems and prose writings in a book I may feel very different about that. As a reader I can read it in the tone I wish to read it in and with being able to see the words on the page I may be able to see more meaning to the words than I would if I just heard them. I am a very visual person when it comes to words. I want to be able to see what is being said if it’s something that I really need to remember.
4. I don’t remember the title of one writing that Schroeder wrote, but he talked about Chicago. I think I connected with this because I had just been to Chicago and I loved it there. In this he talked about how lovely it was. He also made comparisons to the other places he lived. I feel that the audience didn’t really have much of a reaction other than maybe a longing to go there and to the other places that were mentioned. I think he wanted us to feel that way because he spoke so highly of these places and the tone in his voice just sounded like he himself longed to go there again.