Francis wrote:
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


In the first place, Francis, in order to exercise a "veto" I should either
be an authority or be considered an authority by others, which is not the
case, I believe. Hence, I do not understand all this general uprising
against "my" "own" "personal" objection to the use of "we". Which was also
clearly stated as being "a joke". It is also strange that one assumes I
object to any use of "we" since this would make speech impossible. It is ,
of course, the projection of such a point of view that is questionable. We
have the first or the third person narrator , the omniscent narrator,
and also the ventriloquist narrator (or else the "we"). To which I wish
to ask "we " who? When? why? and what?

My freedom to be tired of poems where the authors over-use "we" is
legitimate and puts no restrains to those who are still in the stage of
considering themselves spokesmen of other people's realities and feelings
(community, clan or family)and writing in the name of someone else,
collectively. I am free, as a reader to stop buying books even when they
are signed by authors such as Heaney or Hill, if I start feeling they are
conferring a role to themselves I do not wish to acknowledge or regard as
truthful, actual, possible. A role which is unsolicited and arbitrary. A
representational "plurare maiestatis" which can be used, perhaps, when it
is aware of its self-referentiality and therefore be analysed from a
formalist perspective.

Of course, when I speak out my objections to the generalized use of "we" I
am not having in mind none of the people who are on Poetryect, whose poem I
vaguely know, I do not buy or translate or criticize.
I am talking about those who have their books wide spread on the market and
are subjected to public criticism worldwide. I am thinking about Hill,
Heaney, Murray, Motion, Hughes, Montale and so on. Big names, then who if
caught in defect bear more responsability and have more impact on the
history of peotry and aesthetics.


For those who are not still involved in the public trade at that level,
there is still plenty of time to experiment and reconsider their own style
and intention. In that case, it would be profitable for them to know that,
out there, there are trends in the fields of literary criticism which
analyse the poet's work even at the micro level of their use of pronouns.
And can even make a theory out of it (the so called.

Those who still think that they can affect readers ( or critics) by simply
protesting against a certain trend, (in this case is heavely based on a
linguistic , socio-linguistic analysis of the text) should know that they
cannot stop a theory implementing itself, they merely attack the individual
(s) behind it,a nd uselessly. Meaning, with no effect. Effectless.

You are free to call a theory nihilistic or self-parodistic . I had the
feeling you were trying more to address the poeple who support it.

There is nothing self-parodistic or nihilistic in dismissing for
aesthetical or ideological purposes the use of a poetic form which does not
appeal to one's opinion and sensibility.

 I have stopped translating Heaney in Italian when I felt his use of
the "representational" "we" increased after the Nobel Prize and was
obscuring the fact that there is a individual behind those words.

Now, if a poet aims or dreams of getting that award, he should know that to
get it you have to be capacble of conferring universal values to your
literary achievements in terms of speaking a language that renders the
condition of all men. But I still cannot think of any writer who won the
Nobel Prize (Beckett, Camus, Pirandello) because he planned to be a
spokesman using the representational "we". Beckett, Camus, Pirandello were
speaking the mind of the solitary being out as an exemple of the universal
human condition. And even when Beckett wrote about Vladimir and Extragon
as "the two of us", he did it to show the incommunicability of their
different selves and of their different languages with those of the people
in the audience, using "we negatively.

 As for me, it is my opinion that individuals can barely represent
themselves, since I see us as wearing a mask anyhow. How can you speak
about a "we" if I am not even sure who are you, who is the author.

So, I do wish authors could stand naked on their piles of stones and be
ready to expose yourselves to (possible) lapidation. Assume the attitude of
the martyrs since while thinking and hoping (as martyrs do) that they are
representing someone (to be " il capro espiatorio" ,the "holy lamb") they
are just representing yourselves and their accountability is limited to
that . The rest comes out - if it comes out - not by means of a program,
but by the power (if there is one ) of imagery.





On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:00:28 +0100, Matthew Francis
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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
>>