"perhaps..."

Jess echoes Josh's comment on the UGP reading. I think, though, that it's a bit more complex than poets wanting to be rockstars and poets wanting to schmooze and drink rather than hear poetry.

First, the venue itself, as Josh noted, was not ideally suited to a poetry reading. A party, yes. And is it any wonder that people partied? Not to mention free beer, and free whiskey at the Hot Whiskey table.

So yes, offer people free liquor and all bets are off. (Witness, for contrast, the following night's LIT/Redivider party--no free booze, less schmoozing, more poetry paying-attention; or maybe that was just me.)

In any case, the two venues were different in capacity. It was a lot easier to get stuck near the tower of power potty in the rear of the UGP, and miss what was happening on stage. The view from the stage was pretty bad too--difficult to see _anything_. This, however, made it somewhat easier for me to read, addressing not people, but darkness punctuated by the occasional hoot or holler.

And then there were the people. After I read, I had a lot of strangers (er, new friends) that I had to talk to--and part of what poetry does, after all, is bring people together. Art's social function and all that. So I guess some amount of schmoozing is inevitable and desirable. Jess writes: "Ultimately it comes back to the work and not the personality." And I'd agree, but I'd also add that sometimes the personality is the best entry-point into the work and that should not be discounted.

As Jess mentions, Aaron's reading was wonderful, as was Joe's. He forgets to mention his own reading, which was pretty fabulous as well. He has a quiet chant, an incantatory hum of syllables; the poetry takes on an almost-tangible quality, like you could grab it out of the air, like slow birds, for example.