Finally, I've got some time to carefully read your message. Thank you for explaining it. I had no idea. I knew the power of silence but not in that way. Which is very interesting. I, too, agree with you that we live in a different time than the poets and we need to adjust and preserve the original text at the same time.brucek wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 8:21 amThanks Sarah and thank you for your important comments on the power of silence. Let me say a few words in general about this crucial element and then I will address the issue at hand.
Yes, I fully agree, silence, if used judiciously, can be a very useful tool in relating a message, creating an atmosphere and drawing attention - this among a plethora of additional and important other effects - but the key element here is "judiciously".
Although a guiding principle of narration is to remain true to an author’s original intent, we live in very different times from when the poem was written; indeed these poems are being disseminated via a medium unimagined by poets of a century ago. We as proliferators of the art of a prior century must take the initiative to accommodate the material to our current zeitgeist, as subtly as possible but unavoidably at times at odds with the author's original conception of his audience. The responsibility which we have assumed as twenty-first century narrators necessitates a good many decisions of this nature that must be carefully considered.
Not to wax too poetic, Sarah, but I often gain inspiration (and indeed often solace) from the Bard of Avon. Relating to our current discussion, I am inspired by his character Hamlet’s admonition (Act 3 Sc 2) to “Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue”. This, I believe is more germane today even than it was at the turn of the seventeenth century.
Now, referring to Section 7 “The United Front” by Alfred Noyes, I found it curious to note that the stanzas separated by numbers tend to split related thoughts even more so than those unnumbered. For instance the verse numbered “II” begins with the word “They”; while that numbered “III” begins with “We” – both directly referring to thoughts in the previous verse and hence not calling for any appreciable silence. Meanwhile the second verse in “II” begins with “But”, and in “III” with “It is” which in my opinion could present a stronger argument for a period of silence as means of separating thoughts than even those numbered.
So, in summary, in my attempt to “acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness” (H Act 3 Sc 2) I would stand by the decisions I have made in this poem.
But thank you once again for your careful perusal of my reading and your pondering of important aspects of the work. We both aspire to present the best for our listeners and that is always a good thing and what makes me value your opinion as a key team member.
I'm guilty of not reading Hamlet yet. But I'll make sure to read it as soon as possible.