Catholic Online Forum

I am struggling with this. I understand what you're saying in the abstract, and there is certainly a great deal of value to it.

I'm concerned, however, that all too much of the reading of the Word I hear is extremely flat and, for lack of a better term, dead. Monotonous, almost. This misses an opportunity to engage the listener in the reading at all.

Grace builds on nature. I think there needs to be a both-and. Readers should read the text dynamically, varying their voice and giving life to the text, and avoid a monotone. But not shoehorn the text into their interpretation of it by emphasizing some words and de-emphasizing others, to permit, as you say, the text to speak in as many ways as possible to as many as possible.

As a reader, this is a balance I struggle with. I have received many compliments for my reading, but I may be infusing it with my own emphasis, even if I am honestly thinking that is what the text is saying, instead of letting the text speak on its own.

I am struggling with this. I understand what you're saying in the abstract, and there is certainly a great deal of value to it.

I'm concerned, however, that all too much of the reading of the Word I hear is extremely flat and, for lack of a better term, dead. Monotonous, almost. This misses an opportunity to engage the listener in the reading at all.

Grace builds on nature. I think there needs to be a both-and. Readers should read the text dynamically, varying their voice and giving life to the text, and avoid a monotone. But not shoehorn the text into their interpretation of it by emphasizing some words and de-emphasizing others, to permit, as you say, the text to speak in as many ways as possible to as many as possible.

As a reader, this is a balance I struggle with. I have received many compliments for my reading, but I may be infusing it with my own emphasis, even if I am honestly thinking that is what the text is saying, instead of letting the text speak on its own.

When I lectored at Holy Angels, every reader attended a yearly workshop and, additionally, received a workbook which covered every Sunday and Holy Day reading. The workbook explained the purpose of the reading (according to the Church) and what parts should be receive emphasis and what that emphasis should be.

And, yes, the workbook was Church-approved.

Jim,

When I lectored (which was some years ago) we had similar training and workbook. I assume it was "Church approved" but I don't really know this for a fact. And "Church approved" might just mean approved by some liturgist in the diocese or even some committee in the parish. As I recall, I did not find the workbook particularly helpful.

Dean,

Was the Priest a Religious Priest? I know that Franciscans have their own Missal that is approved for use. It is always confusing when they use that missal. At our parish it only used for Franciscan Feast days.

When I lectored (which was some years ago) we had similar training and workbook. I assume it was "Church approved" but I don't really know this for a fact. And "Church approved" might just mean approved by some liturgist in the diocese or even some committee in the parish. As I recall, I did not find the workbook particularly helpful.

Our best lectors have the attitude that they are proclaiming the word and not reading it. They don't engage in dramatics, they practice beforehand, double check the pronunciation of everything, pay attention to the punctuation, speak in a loud, clear voice with careful enunciation and the word is proclaimed. I feel more engaged in the word when they read and simply less distracted. ...

I am struggling with this.

Our best lectors have the attitude that they are proclaiming the word and not reading it. They don't engage in dramatics, they practice beforehand, double check the pronunciation of everything, pay attention to the punctuation, speak in a loud, clear voice with careful enunciation and the word is proclaimed.

Jeff,



I wasn't stating a personal preference. It is simply the traditional approach as to how the readings ought to be proclaimed.

As I said, if they are sung (as is ideal) the problem is solved.

The workbook explained the purpose of the reading (according to the Church) and what parts should be receive emphasis and what that emphasis should be.

Jim,



That's what the rubrics in the Lectionary are for.

And singing them is totally uninspiring, unengaging, and leads to less understanding among much of the laity.

I've seen nothing in the Lectionary to tell me which parts to emphasize and which to de-emphasize, nor what the emphasis should be.

Jeff,



It never has been when I've experienced it.

http://www.youfixittube.com/watch?v=g2PDTxQTE6E

Just trying to be clear.

It never has been when I've experienced it.

http://www.youfixittube.com/watch?v=g2PDTxQTE6E

You are very fortunate.

Well, I said our best lectors. We have some that aren't as good but none of them are into the problem you describe of dramatics for the sake of dramatics.

I think even those who indulge in dramatics probably have good motives. They are not doing it for "the sake of dramatics", they just want to bring the scriptures to life.

I think even those who indulge in dramatics probably have good motives. They are not doing it for "the sake of dramatics", they just want to bring the scriptures to life.

Bill Shakespeare would be proud.

Hamlet: Speak the speech I pray you as I pronounced it to you,
trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it as many of your players
do, I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the
air too much with your hand thus, but use all gently; for in the
very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion,
you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it
smoothness. Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious
periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split
the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of
nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. I would have such
a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant — it out-Herods Herod.
Pray you avoid it.
First Player: I warrant your honour.
Hamlet: Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your
tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature. For
anything so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end both
at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere, the mirror up
to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image,
and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now
this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful
laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the
which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of
others. Oh, there be players that I have seen play, and heard others
praise and that highly, not to speak it profanely, that neither having
the accent of Christians nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man,
have so strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of nature's
journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated
humanity so abominably.
First Player: I hope we have reformed that indifferently with us, sir.
Hamlet: Oh reform it altogether. And let those that play your clowns
speak no more than is set down for them, for there be of them that
will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators
to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary question of
the play be then to be considered. That's villainous, and shows
a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. Go make you ready.


—Hamlet, (III.ii.1-36)

I think even those who indulge in dramatics probably have good motives. They are not doing it for "the sake of dramatics", they just want to bring the scriptures to life.

I think even those who indulge in dramatics probably have good motives. They are not doing it for "the sake of dramatics", they just want to bring the scriptures to life.

Val,

We can never know another's motives. But it is both natural and proper that we draw inferences from our observations, based on our experience and knowledge.

I have my own inferences about those who would have the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated as though it were a revival meeting. Those opinions date back at least to the mid-1970s.

(You have knowledge and experience of those who sing polyphony such that you are in a position to draw reasonable inferences?)

The Langlais Te Deum makes a great Recessional:

David,

An organ voluntary makes for an ideal recessional. But not any organ voluntary - Ride of the Valkyries would hardly do. I think most people (including me) would probably nominate the Widor Toccata as a favourite, but I wanted a contemporary example. By calling the Langlais "great" I simply meant that it is a magnificent work.

Momentarily distracted by thoughts of this thread during the Thanksgiving Mass. One of the lectors is a female actress but no dramatics, just clear, crisp reading.

Monotone?

...it has some unique qualities that make it especially well suited for that purpose.

Monotone?

...Jesus didn't speak in a monotone...

I don't think we will ever know about that.

David,



I hope that one day I will know.

Do you think that those in Heaven speak earthly languages?