Poems are composed by the poet's voice. They are made out of the speech of the poet. Their rhythm, structure and vocabulary are those of the person who writes them. When you are composing a poem, even if you don't speak it aloud (as some poets do), it is based on the speech patterns in your head, on your own individual intonation and vocal habits and the choice of words is dictated by the same internal control centre that governs your other forms of utterance. As you write, the tiny involuntary muscles in your throat and vocal cords are silently shaping your words without your knowledge. The pace of each poem, and even sometimes the line-lengths, are dictated by your own breathing. Writing poetry is, like dancing or playing music, essentially a physical activity as well as a mental one.

Only the poet can give the correct rhythmical interpretation and phrasing to his or her own sentences. If I admire a poet's work, I try to make a point of hearing him or her reading it at least once; after that, their voice is inherent in the words on the page, and I can summon it up again when I read other work by the same author. Then there is the bonus of regional accents; I am thinking of the late, wonderful Patricia Beer, with her Devon voice, and the Northern Irish poets, among others. It is a question of authenticity. I can see no point whatsoever in listening to the work of a living poet read by an actor or by anyone else except the author, unless for educational purposes in the course of teaching. It is valuable for students to hear poetry read aloud and to read it aloud themselves, as part of the process of comprehension and "getting inside" a poem. Ideally, though, they should also hear recordings of poets reading their own work. I am not suggesting that students should imitate a poet's style or presentation, but such recordings illuminate the work itself.