THE READING OF POETRY

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22769, 22 July 1939, Page 20

THE READING OF POETRY

TO THE EDITOR OT THE PRESS. Sir. —I must admit failure in my first attempt to effect some improvement in the reading of poetry over the air. And I had such hopes! Professor Sinclaire gave a radio promise that if I would be “less polysyllabic, he would be more polychromatic.” On Wednesday night he admitted that in my letter of last Friday I went even further than the terms of Jus promise demanded and, having more discernment than your correspondent “Kitwyk,” he saw that this involved some straining on my part. But in the face of this acknowledgement of the generous discharge of my part of the bargain he offered, he did nothing by way of improvement. In fact, he read passages from Chesterton, Carlyle and Lamb in a manner which revealed no relish of the humour he said they contained. Instead of attempting to carry but his part, he scuttled off with an attack on my style and a demand to be given my name so that he could judge of my authority to speak on spoken verse or something else. If he will make a rea-

sonable attempt to speak poetry with a fair regard 'for its music, rhythm and sense, I will give you permission to reveal to him my name. "Kitwyk’s” defence of Professor Sinclaire, I suspect, is rather more painful to him than my attack. “Kitwyk’s” declaration that the professor deliberately reads in a “nice neutrality of tone” while delighting in the “delicate accuracy and pertinence of the poet’s chosen words” smacks too much of preciosity to be pleasing to Professor Sinclaire. If I can understand the bluff, direct terms used by the professor in his lucid and vigorous talks, he delights in the music, the colour, the rhythm, the living beauty of poetry. He admires the pulsing drama of Browning, in spite of the poet’s orcasional lapses from accuracy and has small liking for the stuff that is so tangled in the pertinence of words that it ceases to be poetry. “Kitwyk” says that poetry is “holy ground”—perhaps in the sense that fools rush in to write? —but I suspect that Professor Sinclaire would be more likely to agree that poetry is written by men and women and is not the exclusive prerogative of the high priests. “Kitwyk” sounds like one of the holy men, a sub-deacon at least. .. . May I add that my capacity or incapacity to read poetry before a microphone does not and cannot affect Professor Sinclaire’s ability to do so, nor does it affect the justice or injustice of my criticism, to which, I may observe, there has so far been no reply. Finally, I will not traverse Mr Egan’s letter. I am in such hearty agreement with virtually all that Professor Sinclaire has said in criticism of poetry and prose, adverse and favourable, during his radio talks that it is unnecessary. In truth, I am gratified by the affinity of my own views with his. My criticism was directed at his reading of quotations and, may I add that he is not the only offender: he is merely the most recent. —Yours, etc., y KNOB-TURNER. July 20, 1939.