In
“The Pleasure Principle” (Required
Writing: Miscellaneous Pieces 1955-1982, 1983), written in 1957, Larkin
outlines what he calls a “basic tripartite structure” to the writing of a poem.
It starts “when a man becomes obsessed with an emotional concept to such a
degree that he is compelled to do something about it.” That is, he must “construct
a verbal device that will reproduce this emotional concept in anyone who cares
to read it, anywhere, any time.” And third comes “the recurrent situation of
people in different times and places setting off the device and re-creating in
themselves what the poet felt when he wrote it.” Stated clinically: stimulus: response:
secondary stimulus. “Setting off the device” might refer to detonating a bomb. In summary,
says Larkin, poetry is “a skilled re-creation of emotion in other people, and…conversely,
a bad poem is one that never succeeds in doing this.” The reader of a successful
poem is “someone who must understand and enjoy the finished product.”
Do
we enjoy “Ambulances?” Do we enjoy being reminded of “the solving emptiness?”
Not if a poem must be uplifting, comforting or palliative. But if it is an
artful arrangement of words, and if the words recreate the poet’s understanding
of an event, and if that event is resonant with shared human experience, readers
will be moved and perhaps changed and will reflect on their life and assumptions. For grownups, there is subtle and sometimes lasting pleasure
in such things; seldom in children.
Philip
Larkin was born on this date, Aug. 9, in 1922.
[ADDENDUM: Yvor Winters writes in his
foreword to In Defense of Reason (1947):
“The poem is a statement in words about a human experience. Words are primarily
conceptual, but through use and because human experience is not purely
conceptual, they have acquired connotations of feeling. The poet makes his
statement in such a way as to employ both concept and connotation as
efficiently as possible. The good poem is good in so far as it makes a
defensible rational statement about a given human experience…and at the same time
communicates the emotion which ought to be motivated by that rational
understanding of that experience.”]
1 comment:
Somehow I don't find those definitions satisfying. Perhaps they are too rational for somebody who thinks a poem should retain a share of mystery.
Good post, all the same.
Post a Comment