Reading,Hearing,and Seeing Poetry Performed

Abstract

The study investigated the differences between reading a poem, listening to a poem, and watching a live poetic performance. Stimulus materials included three poems with positive and three with negative themes written by Michelle Hilscher. The 32 participants, including an equal number of males and females in psychology and literature, completed a General Poetry Questionnaire (GPQ) to indicate their experiences and impressions of poetry coming into the study. Following the presentation of each poem, participants answered 14 5-point scale questions in a Poetry Reception Questionnaire (PRQ) which captured cognitive and emotional nuances of poetry reception, and one open-ended question where the participants wrote freely about the poem's meaning. A factor analysis of the GPQ distinguished primarily between participants' responsiveness to the stylistic features and subject matter of poetry. A factor analysis of the PRQ identified global absorption, interpretive engagement, and narrative representation as the primary activities involved in responses to the six poems. A factor analysis of qualitatively derived meaning categories (MC) contrasted an elaboration of style and metaphor as opposed to subject matter and story line. Analyses of variance showed that respondents preferred to read poetry as compared to hearing, or seeing it performed live. By reading poetry themselves, participants were able to explore and interpret the literary devices in poetry in an independent and creative manner, whereas participants who experienced a live performance seemed constrained in their ability to be actively involved in their experience of poetry and therefore found the poetry less engaging.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bergez

(1989). L'explication de texte litteraire. Paris: Bordas.

Braun

, & Cupchik

G. C.

(2001). Phenomenological and quantitative analyses of absorption in literary passages. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 85–109.

Cupchik

G. C.

(1992). From perception to production. In Cupchik

G. C.

& Laszlo

(Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy (pp. 83–99). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cupchik

G. C.

(1994). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics, 23, 177–188.

Cupchik

G. C.

(2002). The evolution of psychical distance as an aesthetic concept. Culture & Psychology, 8, 155–187.

Cupchik

G. C.

, & Gebotys

R. J.

(1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 1–14.

Cupchik

G. C.

Leonard

Axelrad

, & Kalin

J. D.

(1998). The landscape of emotion in literary encounters. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 825–847.

Eco

(1989). The open work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in 1962.)

Eliot

T. S.

(1975). Tradition and the individual talent. In Kermode

Frank

(Ed.), Selected Prose (pp. 37–44). London: Faber and Faber. (Originally published in 1932.)

10.

Eva-Wood

(2002). Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Paper presented at the 8th conference of the International Association for the Empirical Study of Literature (IGEL), August 21-24, Pecs, Hungary.

11.

Fish

(1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Graesser

A. C.

Singer

, & Trabasso

(1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.

13.

Holland

(1973). Poems and persons. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

14.

Holland

(1975). Five readers reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.

15.

Iser

(1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

16.

Kris

(1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.

17.

Miall

D. S.

, & Kuiken

(1994). Beyond text theory: Understanding literary response. Discourse Processes, 17, 337–352.

18.

Moles

(1968). Information theory and esthetic perception. ( Cohen

J. E.

Trans.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. (Originally published 1958.)

19.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(1991). Poetry and the passions: Two Stoic views. In Nussbaum

M. C.

(Ed.), Passions and perceptions: Studies in Hellenistic philosophy of mind (pp. 97–149). New York: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Oatley

, & Jenkins

J. M.

(1996). Understanding emotions. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

21.

Richards

I. A.

(1963). Principles of literary criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (Originally published 1924.)

22.

Schmidt

S. J.

(1982). Foundations for the empirical study of literature: The components of a basic theory. ( de Beaugrande

, Trans.). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

23.

Wimsatt

W. K.

, & Beardsley

M. C.

(1998). The intentional fallacy. In Richter

D. H.

(Ed.), The critical tradition: Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 748–756). Boston: Bedford. (Originally published in 1954.)