J
H Prynne gave a lecture at Sussex University last week. I went along with friends who live in
Lewes. Two of us walked there over the South
Downs, up a long ridge and down a spur.
We arrived at dusk with boots whitened by chalk mud. Universities after dark are strange places. 60 or so people in a large, grimly fluorescent
lecture theatre, somewhere on an emptied-out campus.
We
went out of curiosity, I suppose, and to be entertained... I’d rather have got JHP
the poet, but the academic satisfied both motives. One would have cast him for the part: tall,
thin, black velvet jacket, energetic, deploying a fair amount of academic wit
and charm. One would have cast the
audience, too, lots of intense young men (mostly) in an array of woolly jumpers. The faculty didn’t seem to have turned out
for the occasion, apart from Keston Sutherland who gave a rather sweetly
adulatory introduction.
The
lecture was called 'The Poet's Imaginary'.
Prynne told us he was floating an idea that he hadn’t tested or researched. His starting point was the imaginary friend that
some small children have. Such friendships involve conversation, sometimes out
loud, though they may start in the pre-language phase. Could the adult poet’s inspiration come from
a similar or successor relationship, an internal dialectic with an inwardly
generated other? This other, the imaginary,
would come (or not) when the poet sharpens his/her pencils, clearing the mind
to write. The relationship would be like
a real life one, sometimes friendly, sometimes more difficult, not necessarily
life-long. Indeed real life close
literary collaborations (Wordsworth/Coleridge etc) might have a similar effect.
That’s
a rudimentary account. It may be
inaccurate. (I made a few notes on the
trains home, by which time I was full of good Lewes bitter, proof against the cold
of various station platforms.) Prynne had
some fun with his idea; he also clothed it, at times, in the language of lit
crit. There was a subtext on class and
education. There was politics outside
too – somewhere on campus was the student occupation, supported by Prynne, in
protest at a plan to privatise various university services and facilities.
I
liked the domestic nature of the imaginary.
It’s good to bring the muse down from the mountains and, as Prynne said,
take the religion and mysticism out of poetic inspiration. I’m not sure he used that latter term at
all. I also liked the tracing back to the
solitariness of childhood; apparently, elder siblings and only children are
more likely to have an imaginary friend.
(During questions, it emerged that one young man had had several.)
Beyond
that, the imaginary didn’t resonate with me as an explanation for where poems
come from. I never had an imaginary
friend, and the event of inspiration doesn’t feel like dialectic. It’s more like an underground river
surfacing. The river’s usually so far
down that I can hardly believe it exists, and occasionally near enough the
surface for me to have one ear constantly listening for it.
One
questioner quoted W S Graham’s “What is the language using us for?” That resonates.
In
the pub afterwards, the imaginary didn’t really work for anyone in an unrepresentative
sample of four. One person said it
reminded him of a teddy bear relationship he’d had, though – maybe imaginary
friends can take various shapes. A
couple of people in Prynne’s audience who asked questions about animals could
have been thinking of Philip Pullman’s daemons.
I
wanted to know why Prynne had come up with this theory. Did he have an imaginary friend himself when
small? Does inspiration feel like dialectic
for him? I did ask, in the Q&A
session at the end, and Prynne gracefully declined my question (twice) and said
something else interesting instead. Fair
enough. Pocket-sized copies of Pearls That Were were on sale. I asked him to sign mine and got a dedication
in the most beautiful black-ink italic script: “This book is for Fiona, who
knows how to ask a difficult question”. I
chose to take this as charming, rather than patronising. The students were all too cool to ask for a
signature; or, as one of my companions thought, too scared.
Anyway,
next time I read JHP the poet, his imaginary will be there in the
background.
See here for more on the poetry, and some links.
This is from Pearls that Were:
So Orpheus tamed the wild beasts
for long night comes down
moving naked, over the wound,
the gem from the crown.
Interesting. But - don't all of us have imaginary friends in our heads? Otherwise, who do we talk to when we talk to ourselves? Some psychologist or other came up with this theory that we are all dual personalities. (Think hard, you'll remember who it is. No I won't. Lazy cow.)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, Judi... but then I'm not a psychiatrist. Talking to oneself runs in my family (female side). To me, it doesn't feel like an imaginary friend. Did you have one when you were little?
DeleteAs for poems, quite a lot of mine are addressed to a real person. But I think that is partly the way they come out.
It's a vast subject, isn't it... I mostly kept to Prynne's lecture in this piece, but could have gone off anywhere. Lots must have been written about the psychology of poetic inspiration, let alone the question of who is in our heads.
Thank you for posting this interesting article on Prynne. I am a big fan of Prynne and Sutherland. Looking for others who are similarly disposed. I am at rockcru.wordpress.com (Against Interpretation).
ReplyDeleteThanks, rockcru. Have just enjoyed looking at your blog.
DeleteIt reminds me (from this brief sketch) a bit of Julian Jaynes' idea of bicameralism, or at least the vestiges of it.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Have just looked it up - I see what you mean.
Delete