At Mashable, 'Don't Read Like a Poet'

Mashable's "Why are poets' voices so insufferably annoying" is not for the faint of heart but it is a good read. Matt Petronzio's article about the origins of "poet voice" delves into linguistics, op-eds, and conversations from within the poetry community to paint a well-thorough picture of the trend. From Mashable:

When I was in grad school I'd meet my thesis advisor, Catherine, on Tuesday nights at a café on New York's Upper West Side. We'd sit together at a small table, where she'd have me read my fresh, newly written poems out loud.

It was an exercise to hear how the poems sounded, a way to help pinpoint any hiccups in the rhythm, line breaks and so on. (It also taught the regular café-goers that, yes, poets gather over black tea and read poems about death, just like you imagined.)

One particular night, I started reading a new poem — but I only got through two lines before Catherine stopped me.

"Don't read it like it's a poem," she said. "Read it like you're talking to me." In other words, read like a human.

Without realizing it, I had been talking in "poet voice" — that affected, lofty, even robotic voice many poets use when reading their work out loud. It can range from slightly dramatic to insufferably performative. It's got so much forced inflection and unnecessary pausing that the musicality disappears into academic lilting. It's rampant in the poetry community, like a virus.

Ironically, the community itself pushes back against poet voice. various Op-eds have urged everyone to drop the act. It can reflect poorly on poetry itself, perpetuating the myth that poems are unattainable high art — elitist, even.

It's like that friend who visited London a couple of times and magically brought back a British accent.

"Dude. You're from Brooklyn."

Often, it's unintentional. Is there some subconscious reason poets are prone to the contrived "poet voice"? The answer may just lie in linguistics. [...]

Learn on at Mashable.