A marvellous insight, Mairead. I don't know that many poems about
childbirth, but of course the Sylvia Plath poem _You're_ springs to mind. It
seems to me that the pronouns actually mean different things from poem to
poem - 'you' addressed to a real person is different from 'you' addressed to
the reader of the poem, which is different again from 'you' (all right,
'thou') to a Grecian urn, or 'you' meaning 'one'. And sometimes these
meanings can slide into each other over the course of the poem. Other
deictic words like 'this' and 'here' can behave similarly. That's why I find
the subject so fascinating, and get so annoyed by poems that use these words
in a rigid, mechanical way.
Best wishes
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mairead Byrne <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 08 April 2001 18:53
Subject: Re: please expand
>I agree with you, Matthew. The poem I posted was about the unscalability
>of we. On the subject of "you" (!), one place I very much appreciate its
>use is in poetry about childbirth where the child is addressed as "you"
>and the pronoun is almost suspended in questionmarks, perhaps because
>beeing "applied" for the first time.
>Mairead
>
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Matthew Francis wrote:
>
>> That's OK - as I had mentioned in passing that you had got my name wrong
>> before, I assumed you must be doing it deliberately. I am not offended
when
>> people reverse my name by mistake, as happens quite often.
>>
>> To return - cautiously - to our previous discussion, it's clear now that
you
>> were not intending to be taken literally when you said that you hated the
>> use of 'we' in poems generally. I was not sure whether you were or not.
It
>> seems to me that self-parody is not an inaccurate description of the
>> hyperbole you used, which you have yourself subsequently described as a
>> joke. You were parodying or exaggerating a position you actually hold,
and
>> perhaps it was a bit much to expect that others would be able to
distinguish
>> your real position from your joking one on so little evidence. I don't,
I'm
>> afraid, remember your former discussion of the subject.
>>
>> I was a bit puzzled, too, Candice, when you said we'd been through the
>> question of pronouns exhaustively before. Are you sure it was on this
list?
>> I do remember a discussion of my own personal bete noire, poems that use
>> 'you' supposedly to tell a real person a lot of things they must already
>> know - as in _Birthday Letters_. It was a long time ago, and may have
been
>> on britpo, which I belonged to at the time. Somebody came up with one of
>> Hardy's great poems to *his* dead wife, and effectively silenced me on
that
>> one. I still think that most of the time the effect is unbearably
pompous,
>> and there are a lot of poets who seem to think anything is a poem
provided
>> it's in the present tense and addressed to a lover, or the past and
>> addressed to a dead relative.
>>
>> If this is becoming a bore, I had better stop. For me, as I've said, it's
>> crucial - the question of pronouns, like the question of form, is one
that I
>> have to settle for myself all over again every time I write a poem. And
>> while I accept that 'we' can also be a symptom of self-importance, I
believe
>> some poets successfully claim the right to speak for others. I could
quote
>> lots of examples, but the one that sticks in my mind is the end of
>> _Briggflatts_:
>>
>> Night, float us.
>> Offshore wind, shout.
>> Ask the sea
>> what's lost, what's left,
>> what horn sunk,
>> what crown adrift.
>>
>> Where we are who knows
>> of kings who sup
>> while day fails? Who
>> swinging his axe
>> to fell kings, guesses
>> where we go?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Clitennestra Giordan <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 08 April 2001 17:01
>> Subject: Re: please expand
>>
>>
>> >Dear Matthew,
>> >
>> >I was not aware that I was using your surname.
>> >I am sorry if it sounded rude. I was simply confused.
>> >Have my sincere apologies.
>> >So, Matthew, please, excuse me again.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >erminia
>> >
>>
>
|