At what point in my message, Erminia, did I abuse you personally? It's still
attached below - check it out. I took issue strongly with a view that I
thought was overstated to the point where it was hard to take seriously -
hence 'self-parody'. I also got your name right, which is more than you can
say of mine.
You may think you were objecting to the abuse of the first person plural. If
so, you should read *your* message again. You were objecting to its *use* in
any poem, a view which, if taken seriously, would make poetry almost
impossible to write. Now you're laying claim to irony. I didn't see any of
that in your first message - you don't, I take it, mean you weren't
objecting to the use of 'we' after all?
To make my argument clearer: there is a certain use of 'we' which, it has
been claimed, coerces the reader or some other person - eg in some poems by
Philip Larkin where he starts off by talking about his own experiences and
then halfway through switches to generalizations about humanity - which some
people find glib. I understand this objection, though I don't agree with it
in every case because I think it acceptable and indeed necessary to talk
about humanity in general terms on occasion. But there is another use of
'we' which is simply factually accurate. If I say of my wife and myself that
we (as it happens) went to a wedding today, that is not a coercion or an
evasion of responsibility, it is just true. Do you really want to remove
this word from poetry? If so, why stop there? Why not excise it from the
language for daring to suggest that one person can ever in any circumstances
share a characteristic or an activity with another?
But I can't believe we're arguing about this. I do not and did not intend
any offence to you. I was pointing out that your first message was
exaggerated (perhaps due to your own overfamiliarity with the argument
against 'we') and that the end result was not critically useful. Unlike
Candice I do actually think the question of pronouns in poetry is worth
discussing, and I don't want to see it reduced to a simple attempt to
exercise a veto.
Best wishes
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Clitennestra Giordan <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 07 April 2001 09:37
Subject: Re: self-parody- please expand
>On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:04:21 +0100, Matthew Francis
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>Well... This reaction too is familiar to me since those who are used to
>prefer the personal pronoun "we" to avoid , in my view, direct involvement
>and responsability in what they state or dare to say in poetry , or else to
>simply back themselves up (in love poems, expecially)often responde
>vehemently and beyond proportion (even by resorting to personal attacks as
>you are doing with no particular need to do so)to the fact that a given X
>cast an y doubt on the use of a given general "device". I was merely
>making irony on idea of marriage poems, not sociliciting offences to me. As
>for the way my irony turned into being a "self-parody", as you kindly
>stressed,Francis, please since the passage - in a logical sense - appears
>obscure to me, could you expand?. Mayeb you could attempt to illuminate the
>list by providing textual analysis of my personal use or non-use of "we" in
>my own poetry? But I am sure, you would not be bothered neither it would
>change the fact that those who abuse the personal pronoun "we" in their
>poems sound boring to me, as a critic and a reader. As for marriage poem, I
>have none to submit to a newly webbed couple. Maybe a different text that
>I have in my mind would be more appropriate, but again, this does not
>belong to our Western culture and it is not a lyric poem.
>
>
>>Erminia writes:
>>
>>>Generally I deeply object (I said that elsewhere on Poetryetc)
>>>to using the personal pronoun "we" in poetry.
>>
>>
>>This argument is familiar to me, but just as I felt some people were doing
>>in the recent discussion of speech / writing, it seems to me you're
>>exaggerating it to the point of self-parody. Not all uses of the word are
>>coercive - most of the time they're simply factual. If you dismiss every
>use
>>of 'we' you'll get rid of half the poems ever written. (And before you say
>>good riddance, think for a moment of the consequences when someone else
>>takes a blowtorch to what's left for the sake of the next critical fad.)
>>
>>Pronouns are always problematic in poetry because of the oddly impersonal
>>nature of text itself, but I gotta use words when I talk to you. I do
think
>>the question of community and the extent to which it can be enacted in
>>poetry is a very important one. Poets need to ask themselves when it's
>>appropriate to use 'we'. But to give up and say never strikes me as a kind
>>of kneejerk nihilism that won't get us any nearer the solution. (Sorry -
>did
>>I say *us*?)
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Matthew
>
|