OUT AND ABOUT

I was excited to hear that Eileen Myles so effectively recites her essay, “My Father’s Alcoholism,” from memory (“It’s Been Said,” in Michelle Huneven’s column “Out and About,” Aug. 14).

Trained as a musician, I have always valued memorized performances: They are more likely to be direct and heartfelt than readings. What distressed me was the comment by writer Michelle Huneven, who was “relieved to have the old familiar page conventionally lodged between reader and audience” when Miles ended her memorized portion and began reading from the printed page. During what is no doubt a stirring autobiographical piece, is relief the goal of an auditor?

My local Barnes & Noble hosts twice-monthly poetry nights. Participants bring their own and others’ works; a few of us make the effort to memorize our presentations, and the effect is always well-received and powerful. There is a sense of deep knowing (in audience and reciter) when confronting a piece from memory; it is easier to convey a personal understanding to an audience when it has been given such attention. I hope that Huneven’s comment, although undoubtedly genuine, doesn’t discourage other writers from presenting their work “by heart.”

ALAN BERMAN, UPLAND

*

I would like to take exception to Michelle Huneven’s reporting of the Lannan Foundation reading by winners of the 1993 National Poetry Series contest. I was thrilled that someone was actually going to review a poetry reading that had not taken place at a coffeehouse and did not have any relationship whatsoever to celebrities.

From the description of the contest provided by Huneven, it sounds like a thrilling honor and a genuine career boost to have been chosen as a winner.

Huneven states that “traditional formal concerns” dominate these poet’s work. What exactly are traditional formal concerns? Does she mean they’re concerned with traditional form? Or that the poets’ subject matter is traditional? Whose tradition is she referring to?

From Huneven’s descriptions of the reading, I got a good idea of the range of topics covered by these poets; everything from love to AIDS to Laos to orangutan rehab centers. But I didn’t get an idea of whether or not the poems were any good. Huneven says the Series has a reputation for selecting artists well worth reading. Are these new poets well worth reading? Did Huneven feel like she was on the high road to Taos as Martin Edmunds read? (By the way, were his clenched fists a political statement, a sign of nervousness, or a symptom of advanced arthritis?) Did the journalist’s poems about Cambodian killing fields sound like journalism?

After reading Huneven’s dry summation of each poet’s contribution to the reading, the only poet whose work seems interesting to me is Young’s. Anyone who says a hair-straightening comb smells like burning lilacs has my attention.

One more question. Why report that Karen Swenson is 50ish and that Rachel Wetzsteon is young and lanky, but not how old the three men are, or whether or not they’re lanky? Just asking.

JEAN MARIE RUIZ, LOS ANGELES