Two Reading Responses: Anne Carson’s Reading vs. Anne Carson’s Colloquium

            I had the pleasure of attending both Anne Carson’s reading and her colloquium over the past few weeks. Before this year, I had never read her work, and I found it brilliant. My first introduction to her writing was “The Glass Essay,” which we read in Professor Boland’s poetry class. The thing I admired most about the piece was the unforgiving way in which the voice of Carson’s poem depicted her personal tragedy through powerful and even crude language. I couldn’t wait to hear her read in the flesh.

            From the moment she walked on stage she commanded the attention of the audience. Perhaps it was her slow, stiff, purposeful walk, or the way she said, “keep clapping” when the applause died down before she had made it to the podium. By the time her red glasses were being put on, I knew I liked her.

            Overall, I preferred her general reading to her colloquium because I felt that it was a more fitting presentation of her work, that it let the work speak for itself. My absolute favorite piece she read was her “Short Talks.” With their hysterical punch lines and spot-on language, these pieces made up in wit what they lacked in word count. I thought it was a brilliant premise and that she did it so well. Furthermore, I thought that her dry voice, with its distinct pronunciations of every syllable, really allowed the short talks to deliver their full effect.

            This, I suppose, is what I liked less about the colloquium. I still found it fascinating; it was just so different. To me it seemed more of an avant-garde experiment on the intersection between sound and language and physical art than a poetry exposition. There were moments I found very cool, like the use of the string. However, I really have no idea what I took away from it. Was she linking her audience together? Creating a physical space in which the poetry could exist? So while I found this moment “neat” or “fun,” I had trouble deriving meaning from it, which I didn’t struggle with in her general reading. Still, I also thought the “Bracco” piece was very interesting. I have a great appreciation for the fact that Carson is such a brilliant classicist (and furthermore, I think it’s fascinating that she refuses to be defined as a “poet,” which I think is valid given the complexity of her work).  I’ve always been very interested in the idea of manipulating classical texts to make them original (the subject of my PWR II paper!) because I think it can be argued that working with a preexisting piece and making it one’s own requires as much creativity as making something from scratch.

            In the end, Anne Carson is just a very cool writer. She’s brilliant and hilarious and her timing is impeccable. I’m so happy to have been able to study her work and attend two readings this quarter, and I can’t wait to go buy “Short Talks.”