Serious versus humorous

[David Campbell]

I started to write this as part of Wazza’s thread about the Isaac Asimov article, but it was getting a bit long, so a separate thread seemed a good idea. It’s a very interesting article, but one thing jarred with me, and that was Asimov’s observation that: “Nowadays, therefore, rigid scansion and careful rhyme are confined, almost entirely, to light verse and to sentimental ballads.” With regard to the “light verse” he says “…the jigging and repetition are strong elements in the humour being sought for.”

I agree that rhyme and rhythm are extremely useful elements of humorous verse, especially in performance, but can’t go along with the idea that most of what we do in bush poetry is “light verse and sentimental ballads.” Here are some statistics.

Firstly, of the 38 poems in Award Winning Bush Verse and Stories 2012, only 7 are humorous. Of the non-humorous poems, one or two might be classed as “sentimental ballads”, although I’m not too sure exactly what the term means (others who have the book might care to comment). In other words, the vast majority of the winning poems in the book are on serious topics.

Secondly, of the 27 requests I’ve had from performance poets for permission to use my poems, only one has been for a humorous piece.

Of course, there may be other factors at work (judges’ attitudes, for example), but here’s a generalisation to mull over…as far as bush poetry competitions are concerned, whether written or performance, it seems a serious poem is more likely to win. Funny poems are best kept for those competitions that run a separate section for humorous pieces.

Yet, from my experience, the general public perception is very much in line with what Asimov says…traditional rhyming poetry is seen as being predominantly “light verse and sentimental ballads”. So what’s going on? Why is there such a difference between what is happening within the bush poetry community and what members of the general public perceive?

Here’s my theory. If I’m in a group of bush poets I have no problem doing a serious poem, because I know they’re interested in the verse and how it works. But a group of non-poets aren’t interested in the verse, they just want to be entertained…and that means I’m more likely to opt for humour. Ask them whether they want a serious or humorous piece and 9 times out of 10 they’ll say: “Do a funny one!” So I give them what they want. The only variation on this is one of the old favourites. They’ll happily listen to some Banjo, Henry or C. J. because they can remember a few lines. But contemporary, serious verse? Preferably not.

And that’s where the public perception comes from. Very few people read poetry, but a fair number come across it in performance. Ask someone what they know of bush poetry, and they might say something like: “Oh yeah, I saw this bush poet when we were on holiday in Uppercumbuctawest and jeez he/she was funny. I laughed my head off!”

Another side of this is audience reaction. With a humorous poem we get instant feedback…if they’re laughing we know they’re enjoying it and can work off that. It’s a great adrenalin rush. But with a serious poem, we often can’t really be sure. Someone, clearly emotional, might come up afterwards with a quiet word of appreciation, but that general crowd reaction is not nearly so obvious. It’s a tougher gig, so the temptation is to go for laughs.

Of course, some performers can only ‘do’ humour, and others are only comfortable with serious poems, so that has to be factored in. But I still reckon that, in general, we’re doing one thing inside the bush poetry community and another when dealing with the general public. Judges might be impressed by poems about alcoholism, the horrors of war, drought, drugs, Alzheimers, cancer and so on…but the general public don’t want to hear about that. They want to sit back, relax, and have a good laugh.

But maybe that’s wrong. Maybe audiences are keen to hear serious poems on contemporary issues. If so, I’d be interested to hear about it from those who do a lot of performing.

Someone might say: “What’s wrong with entertaining them with humour? That’s what we do! That’s what put bush poetry on the map. Leave the serious stuff to the free verse mob!” My response to that would be that if 80 percent of the poems in an anthology which covers virtually all of our major awards are serious, it’s a pity if people don’t see at least something of the serious side. Because it’s clearly important to quite a few poets and judges. It bothers me that we could be painting ourselves into a corner and creating a self-perpetuating image.

Anyway, thanks for posting the article, Wazza. It got my brain ticking over, and I’m sure that there will be quite a few alternative opinions!

Cheers
David

[Glenny Palmer]

This is a very interesting article David, & one that I think we should all give qualified thought to, if we don’t wish to ‘paint ourselves into a corner’, as could well be the long term case.
I am not too brain flash or time endowed at present, but I will give you my preliminary thoughts:

I think this could possibly be an issue of fundamental Marketing. Our target audience seems to have developed as predominantly Senior Citizens, many who are ‘Grey Nomads.’ They frequent the ‘happy’ festivals during their ‘happy’ escapades, so they are naturally looking for ‘happy’ entertainment. They certainly can respond well to the occasional serious presentation, but only in amongst the laughs. After all, they are cavorting around the country to forget their troubles & have an enjoyable retirement. So is it reasonable to expect them to have a diet of re-visiting theirs/others’ trials & tribulations, in the name of entertainment? You may have the best serious product in the world, but you will not sell sand in the Sahara.

I think it is a matter of identifying exactly where the more serious presentations will be embraced. This means thinking outside of the established box, that is squarely drawn around celebratory festivals. There are numerous organisations & support groups for those requiring comfort, & just as importantly, hope. They also need relief from their particular sufferings, & to this end, sensitively crafted poems & presentations lift their spirits enormously. Their need is to feel that someone else actually knows what they are experiencing…& cares! This, the adept poet can most certainly supply. So we have identified a need, and its demographic, & we have the product to satisfy the demand…the core values of strategic Marketing.
However…I do believe that using some humour to dilute the seriousness is essential. The absolute skill lies in instilling enough trust in them to allow you, the poet, to engage them in sometimes laughing at their particular situation, while not trivialising it. I would assess the normal popularity ratio of humorous to serious poems to be reversed in this type of presentation. Generating an ongoing interest in this more serious poetry would take time & consistent application. But isn’t that the very thing that generated the following that the Bush Poets now enjoy? We took our predominantly humorous poetry to the masses, largely via festivals. Some acclaimed poets have justifiably used the reputations they earned via this process to springboard them into the world of Corporate entertainment. They expanded their demographic. Others have chosen the guest speaker trail. They expanded their demographic. Is it worth considering that those of us who wish to expand ours into the more serious works could begin offering our talents to the more holistic, largely untapped market that I believe exists? In some cases funding for our services may initially be limited, as would be our required fee. But wasn’t that the case with our Bush Poets early days? All that is left to nut out now, is specifically where to target. Relaxation Centres; Meditation groups; Health support groups; Self Development centres; Troubled Youth support?…& all of their associated, sometimes widely distributed, publications. If popularity for the more serious, situation specific poems becomes enhanced, would our contemporary serious ones gather more popularity too?

Also...perhaps we should just hammer Academia!? If we just refuuse to go away (broad shoulders required) we'd make their subsequent 'letters to the editor' contentious enough to possibly attract wider media attention...which, sadly, seems to be the 21st century way to 'fame' & therefore (perceived?) popularity. Just keep turning up at their hi-brow do's. Go in numbers. Launch an orchestrated campaign....(I think I've used up my brain cell quota now... )

As I said, these are only my preliminary thoughts, but I hope they may trigger more substantial ideas.
Cheeers
Glenny

[Stephen Whiteside]

I remember talking to Bill Kearns about this at Port Fairy a few years ago. He said he would like to perform more serious stuff than he does, but can't really get away with it. From memory, he said his ratio of funny to serious was 5 - 6:1.

At Newstead, I performed a serious poem - "Looking Back" - recently written, and posted on this web-site, as part of a 90 minute presentation of poetry and song, involving several performers, that I was asked to MC. It was a calculated risk. I thought I would get away with it because it was the only poem I was doing, and I would be bringing another performer on straight after me. I was keen to get some feedback because it was a new poem, and I was encouraged by the very positive feedback I had received when I had posted it from forum members. It was well received at Newstead, but I knew I'd really be pushing my luck to do another one.

I think you are right, David. My heart is always in my mouth if I perform a serious poem to a general (non-poetry) audience. Sometimes you strike a 'bulls-eye' with somebody (as you discover afterwards), and it is all worthwhile.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Another thought. It is much easier to 'sell' a serious song to an audience than a serious poem.

[Zondrae]

Off the top of my head, and before thinking too much.

I have found and have often said, I don't do 'funny' very well. I really enjoy the fact that many people have come up to me and said they have cried during one of my poems. I find I sell the most books after a performance of one or two of my 'mother's' poems. The way I can tell if I have 'got' the audience is the ambient noise. If I find the level of incidental noise getting less and less til there is almost silence in the venue, I know I have 'done good.' I still think of myself as a writer first and a performer second, but if I am not willing to 'get up' and do my own poems then how can I hope that anyone else will.
Of the 7 or 8 performers who have asked permission to use my work, most of them asked for the funny poems. I am still waiting for the day that I am in an audience and someone gets up and recites one of my poems. I have yet to experience this.
I 'get up' anywhere I am invited to. We did Poetry in the Park for seniors week, we go to old peoples homes, naturally there are folk festivals, I am addressing the View club on International Women's Day, I lob up anywhere they say 'blackboard' poetry, or poetry competition. Sometimes I am the only 'old' person, sometimes the only rhymer, but I always simply do my thing as best I can. I think I am oblivious to critics. But as far as there being a place for funny and a place for serious, I don't think there is. They mix and blend and I feel they should be delivered in a balanced way.
Recently i heard on the radio that there was a poetry 'reading' at the local art gallery and it was on in half an hour. I quickly changed and drove 20 minutes and arrived just as the main poet was reading work from his new book. I enjoyed it. Well written and well read. Then they said if you wished to get up and do a poem go put your name down. I rushed up. Then before they started the performances the MC announced it was a competition.
Well everyone else read, I recited. I was the only rhyming poet and mine was coherent. ('In The Dark') One lad read his poem first in Iranian then in English. It was beautiful ( but not rhyming and he read it). The others, well enough said. I knew I was a snowball in hell. But regardless of the outcome I did the best performance I could. The author of the day sought me out at the end and said I was brave for 'clinging' to the old style of poetry. I couldn't help laughing. I then said 'Thank you for the compliment.' and left.

[warooa]

I like that Zondrae "being brave for clinging to the old style of poetry". Goodonya for doing what it is that you do best. And you obviously do it well.

I agree that folk would rather be left with a smile on their dial and a belly laugh rather than a tear in their eye. It's the challenge of the performer (and writer) when to insert a serious poem into their set and how to deliver it.

Very interesting points made, David. Stephen and Glenny.

Cheers, Marty

[Neville Briggs]

Dr Barry Jones said that Australia was a unique country in that here; academia and intellectual were used as terms of abuse. If he is right then bush poets might as well just stick to looking for the guffaws of the entertained mob.

[Bob Pacey]

Cheers all an interesting discussion, I have never found it a problem with the mix although i will admit I hate to leave a gruop on a teary note but have always fould that the audience appreciates both. Sometimes the preamble for a serious poem particulary if it is about a specific event or happening needs a little bit more effort but it is worth the effort.


I tend to do groups rather than festivals so can do as little more research before the performance and find a little bit more about the demographics of the audience eg age group or interests that may suit a particular poem. All part of being a performer I think.


Pretty easy to make a good mix even if there are a few performers if you put your heads together before hand and sometimes you can use another performers poem to lead into your own.


I will say however that humerous is by far the most that I perform but serious can be just as entertaining if you put in the effort and get it right.

Robert Alan Micheal Pacey ESQ, IAWP

[warooa]

Agree fully Bob about the preamble to a serious poem. You've got to build an anticipation for what you're about to deliver. Words need to be chosen carefully . . .

[David Campbell]

Thanks, Glenny, for a thoughtful and thought-provoking response. I guess it’s expectations we’re talking about here, the assumptions that people make when they hear the term “bush poetry”. Zondrae’s comment about the author saying she was brave for “clinging” to the old style is a telling one, for it’s an attitude that seems pretty common. I constantly fall victim to two basic assumptions. Firstly, people find it odd that a mathematician can actually string a few words together, let alone write poetry. Apparently mathematicians are supposed to be pointy-headed social misfits who spend their time scrawling incomprehensible equations on blackboards. And secondly, there’s the fact that some of my poetry is bush verse, and this ties in with Zondrae’s experience. They’ll say something like: “Why do you do that? I thought it died years ago!” So I’m doubly weird.

I take your point about the grey nomads and choosing where serious poems might be more appropriate…they probably won’t go down well in a late-night pub session or while sitting around a campfire in a caravan park. But what do the corporates expect, and what happens on the guest speaker trail? I’m not a professional performer, so haven’t got much of a clue. Are bush poets employed as sort of rhyming stand-up comedians or is there an expectation that there will be a judicious combination of serious and humorous? If it’s humour that established reputations in the first place, is there a risk that mixing in some serious work will cause the job offers to dry up?

That’s where Stephen’s observation about Bill Kearns is interesting. Bill wants to do more serious stuff, but doesn’t feel he can get away with it. I wonder how many others feel this way…caught between what they’d like to do and the public expectation. It’s heartening to see that Zondrae is delivering both and getting a strong reaction to the serious ones. Here’s a question out of left field: is it more acceptable in the public eye for a woman to do a serious poem? It’s another image thing. Men aren’t expected to ‘do’ emotion or sensitivity.

Over the years I’ve written a number of serious poems that try to portray a situation from a female perspective, and it’s always interesting to see the reaction in a workshop. It’s a combination of “How did you do that?” and “Why did you do that?” In my new book (currently with the printer), 11 of the 40 poems are humorous, and 5 of the serious ones are specifically from a woman’s point of view. All I need is the courage to take more of the serious poems to a wider audience. You’re right in saying there’s an untapped market out there, it’s a case of breaking into it. Your The Blooming, for example, is a beautiful piece of writing that would surely be appreciated by any audience.

I guess it’s a case of persevering and “expanding the demographic” (as you put it), with the aim of slowly changing expectations to the point that, where appropriate, the serious side is accepted just as readily, and with as much appreciation, as the humorous. The idea that we’re “clinging” to something that’s locked in the past really irritates me…bush poetry has a lot to say about what’s going on in contemporary Australian life, and that’s clear from the poems being written. The trick lies in getting the message out!

(I’ve written this as a response to Glenny, but thanks also to Stephen, Zondrae, Marty, Neville, and Bob for your replies.)

Cheers
David