Your persistent use of my surname is gratuitously rude, and I will not
continue this discussion until and unless you show more manners
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Clitennestra Giordan <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 08 April 2001 09:48
Subject: Re: please expand
>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
>>>
>
|