Well, to answer Robin's comment, I am reminded of a lecture
by the American poet, Gerald Stern, in which the point, he said
was to "never fuck the Muse." What he didn't say was the
implication that this was just the point, i.e. the desire. So hence, I think,
the Muse as introjection of one's own unattainable or undesirable
desire. But it is very much an introjection of male desire,
however attainable, or not, it may be.
Whereas, Alison's poem, I think
suggests the viewpoint of the other, who insists upon her existence
in some other sense than the desire that another may use
to circumvent or circumscribe that existence. For instance,
in these terms, it is not so much that the muse unveils herself,
as that she dresses herself, takes on the various guises of being.
It is not merely
training that makes one view the muse as an introjection, but
gender.
I don't think that the ideal muse for a heterosexual woman would
be male, though I have known at least one heterosexual woman
poet who has tried to write the poem that would seem to suit
this, it has never seemed to work.
The muse, like mother, is an idea that is deeply rooted in male
desire, introjection and all, for women, the desire that their materia
serve one's male inspiration. Women poets have no muse, though
they must invariably reply to the concept, even to the concept of
introjection.
Best,
Rebecca
Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com
-------Original Message-------
From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 05/04/03 09:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sparrow&Spider, Poem Six
>
> My training being what it is, I think of the muse as an introject, which ishow I've always experienced (usually) her). Occasionally it's actually
been
someone I've known in the various ways, but always her appearance in my
consciousness has been unbidden and a surprise. I think the point is
longing, and I haven't found that something like fulfillment does much to
quench it. Even those we know best retain an element of mystery, at times
more at times less, as no one is finally knowable.
Mark
At 12:43 AM 5/5/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> > > THE MUSE COMPLAINS
> > >
> >
> > NUDE WITH MIRROR
> > (OR: THE MUSE _REALLY_ COMPLAINS)
> >
> >
> >
> > He could no more perceive her than touch his own horizon
> > retreating before him over cliffs of reason,
> > and she knew this and became bitter.
>
>I like this, Alison -- is there a touch of Robert Graves somewhere in the
>background?
>
>But here's a curious synchronicity -- about an hour before I read this
>(+before+, honest!), I finished the first draft of a poem (which I'm
about
>to type up and see what it's like) called "Mirror Eyes". The figure in
that
>poem (the Sparrow in "The Sparrow and the Spider" sequence) is part-muse,
>part-woman poet. But much of the imagery turns on nakedness and mirrors.
A
>curious and coincident parallel.
>
>I once became fascinated by the concept of Inaccessible Muses -- Laura,
>Beatrice, Shakespeare's Young Man, Billy Budd, Marvell's trees, dead
wives
>[Henry King, Donne and Milton in single sonnets, Hardy, Peter Porter,
>Douglas Dunn] -- figures which, while human (well, you could argue that
>around Marvell's trees, I suppose) are inaccesible, for various reasons,
as
>"actual" sexual partners.
>
>I mentioned this to my ex-boss, Marion Shaw, once, suggesting that in
these
>terms, possibly the ideal muse-figure for a heterosexual male poet would
be
>a lesbian girl, and Marion promptly sent me an email pointing out, in
that
>case, the ideal muse-figure for a heterosexual woman poet would be a gay
>man. Made perfect sense to me.
>
>Robin
>
|