It is interesting to note that the Editors of 'the New Poetry' - Michael
Hulse, David Kennedy and David Morley state, "the strengths on display in
the writing of Carol Ann Duffy (as well as Kay, McMillan and Hattersley) are
located in a tension between ironic social naturalism and confrontational
political work. Duffy has been exemplary in re-energising a feminist, public
voice in poetry. Her habitual use of the dramatic monologue gives her poetry
attack and access, and enables her to popularise complex ideas about
language and its politcal role and meanings. 'Poet for Our Times' is a
bitterly funny indictment of the Thatcher years, and of the abuses that come
with a debasement of language and syntax."
Here I'm quoting the third stanza.
'I like to think I'm a sort of poet
for our times. My shout. Know what I mean?
I've got a special talent and I show it
in punchy haikus featuring the Queen.
DIPLOMAT IN BED WITH SERBO-CROAT.
EASTENDERS' BONKING SHOCK IS WELL-OBSCENE.'
I say, go Carol!
Cheers
Helen
>From: seiferle <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
> poetics <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: "form" (Commanders of the British Empire)
>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:58:52 -0600
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: "seiferle " <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:42:35 -0600
>
> >
> >---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >From: Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
>poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:27:53 -0000
> >
> >fantasy; nor does it explore the
> >>> implications of its presence, which is intended to destabilise the
> >>> class assumptions implicit in the poem, as well as the hierachies of
> >>> language it plays with.
> >>
> >>For me, this it the problem -- it +may+ be that the poem sets out to do
> >>this, but I'm not sure it succeeds. Specifically, as dave pointed out,
> >>without a context, it's difficult to read the language other than as
>simple
> >>cliché . (Though signalling a cliché as +intended+ cliché is a generic
> >>problem that goes beyond Carol Ann Duffy.)
> >
> >
>
>Well, Robin, I don't follow this at all. What other context should there be
>for the poem other than the context it creates? And in the context which
>this poem creates, it seems quite obvious that the poem is 'about' female
>desire and intends to destabilize assumptions about class and gender. You
>can argue, I think, about how successful the poem is in destabilizing those
>assumptions, but it seems to me a willful misreading to read the poem as if
>it were a tawdry expression that uses its cliches unknowingly, as if the
>poet knew no better. Furthermore, it is just not possible to have a subject
>where the maid desires the mistress, and have that subject, in point of
>view, in terms of class or gender, be a cliche; the unexpectedness of the
>situation alone indicates the poet's intent.
>
> >
> >>But if the areas at issue are sex/class/language/history, and the
> >>interactions thereoff, that would strengthen dave's suggestion that it
> >>comes, somehow, out of Larkin's "The Less Deceived", where these issues
>are
> >>also all at play.
> >
> >
>
>Well, I'm lost on this too, I don't know what it means to suggest that
>Duffy's poem "comes, somehow, out of Larkin's 'The Less Deceived," somehow,
>indeed, a most strange progeniture. Poems reply to other poems all the
>time. Sometimes the poet means to reply to the earlier work with a kind of
>counter or revision or with that view that was erased from the earlier
>work. I don't know Duffy's work well enough to say, but perhaps her work is
>meant to reply in a way to Larkin's, particularly its "mind-bogglingly"
>nastiness, though I don't know. To say something comes out of something
>else implies that it is lifted or stolen or plagiarized, and I don't think
>anyone intends to imply that here. On the other hand, it could sound like
>the old rib argument, that out of Larkin's rib, Duffy was created...
> >
> >>Anyway, I'm wandering -- how about this for what Hardy does with the
> >>sex/class/language/history nexus? OK, the issue of female desire isn't
> >>there (or maybe it is?) but all the rest is ...
> >
>
>
>Oh, well, Hardy is very interesting, but I have to say that this poem too
>is "about" the issue of female desire, and has the same kind of intent to
>upset prevailing assumptions: what it means to be ruined is given a very
>different interpretation in this dialogue. Perhaps you meant that it wasn't
>about the issue of female desire, in terms of one woman desiring another
>(as in the Duffy poem)?though I can imagine an argument could be made that
>even that desire may be present in that
> >"bewitched by your delicate cheek" and "my dear," or even the degree to
>which the change in the ruined one is noted by other's comparing her
>drabber suffering self to her bewitching present incarnation. So, yes, this
>poem is 'about' the issue of female desire, which is here fixed upon the
>fineries of clothes and speech, the luxuries of living.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Rebecca
> >
> >www.thedrunkenboat.com
> >>
> >>Robin
> >>
> >>The Ruined Maid
> >>Thomas Hardy
> >>
> >>"O 'Melia, my dear, this does everything crown!
> >>Who could have supposed I should meet you in Town?
> >>And whence such fair garments, such prosperi-ty?"--
> >>"O didn't you know I'd been ruined?" said she.
> >>
> >>--"You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks,
> >>Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks;
> >>And now you've gay bracelets and bright feathers three!"--
> >>"Yes: that's how we dress when we're ruined," said she.
> >>
> >>--"At home in the barton you said 'thee' and 'thou,'
> >>And 'thik oon,' and 'theäs oon,' and 't'other'; but now
> >>Your talking quite fits 'ee for high compa-ny!"--
> >>"Some polish is gained with one's ruin," said she.
> >>
> >>--"Your hands were like paws then, your face blue and bleak
> >>But now I'm bewitched by your delicate cheek,
> >>And your little gloves fit as on any la-dy!"--
> >>"We never do work when we're ruined," said she.
> >>
> >>--"You used to call home-life a hag-ridden dream,
> >>And you'd sigh, and you'd sock; but at present you seem
> >>To know not of megrims or melancho-ly!"--
> >>"True. One's pretty lively when ruined," said she.
> >>
> >>"--I wish I had feathers, a fine sweeping gown,
> >>And a delicate face, and could strut about Town!"--
> >>"My dear--a raw country girl, such as you be,
> >>Cannot quite expect that. You ain't ruined," said she.
> >>
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
|
