I can't speak to whether or not it's "trying" to be the real person on
the far side of the male poet's introject, but Geoffrey Hill's
_Arrurruz_ poems dramatise the situation very well, I think - "you are
outside, lost somewhere". One does risk losing the real person; I did
lose the real person, and do still - in spite of marriage, children,
everything else that has come in since - miss her very much. Sarah
complains that I never wrote anything for her; I try to explain that
this is because I am trying to relate to her *as a human being*, and
given the caustic nature of verse it's probably better not to be
doused with it too liberally (although I do owe her a praise-song or
two, at the very least). Certainly relationships with introjects
should not become too confused with relationships with real persons -
it is not a recipe for happiness, on either side.
Dominic
On 1/12/06, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Let's try again. To call a living woman a muse is to equate her with an
> imaginary goddess, and rather inexactly. The muse was actually thought to
> speak through the poet, as those who speak in tongues are actually thought
> to be possessed by god or demon, the woman may suggest the form of a
> fantasy object as introject--Dante probably knew that Beatrice didn't speak
> through him although he gave her words. To say of a living woman "she's my
> muse" is a figure of speech.
>
> But of course carrying around an imaginary version of anyone is likely to
> interfere with relating to the actual, external person. Tant pis. It's how
> we in fact relate to just about everyone and everything almost all the
> time, although there are moments when the imagined and the real come
> deceptively close.
>
> Which is to say, it's very trying being human.
>
> Mark
>
> At 06:58 PM 1/12/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> >I should think it must be very trying, being someone's muse.
> >
> >Not that anyone's ever suggested me, you understand ....
> >
> >joanna
> >
> >>
> >>Sometimes we objectify our internal interlocutor into various
> >>introjects--as in, my father isn't really shouting at me, etc. And there
> >>isn't an actual audience in my head. The form the introjects take is
> >>certainly culturally -driven in part, as in the case of the female muse.
> >>But all kinds of divinities occasionally burst into speech among the
> >>ancients, male and female. The voice of the poem, and sometimes its
> >>imagined audience, remained the female muse into the renaissance as a
> >>matter of convention, but the convention carried psychological weight,
> >>and I have no doubt that some renaissance poets actually experienced her
> >>as a true introject. Fact is, whether or not we think it politically or
> >>psychologically appropriate we carry all sorts of voices inside us over
> >>which we have liuttle control. So the female muse or whatever may be
> >>inappropriate, but she carries on. It would be nice if more women had a
> >>male introject that provided them with wisdom or eloquence beyond theit
> >>normal reach. But we all know that life is unfair to men, and no matter
> >>how we change the culture most women will resist adopting one.
> >>
> >>Mark
>
--
Shall we be pure or impure? Today
we shall be very pure. It must always
be possible to contain
impurities in a pure way.
--Tarmo Uustalu and Varmo Vene
|