“But at bottom poetry, like all art, is inextricably bound up with giving pleasure, and if a poet loses his pleasure-seeking audience he has lost the only audience worth having, for which the dutiful mob that signs on every September is no substitute.”
Philip
Larkin’s commonsensical reminder in “The Pleasure Principle” always boosts my morale. Any specimen of poetry or prose we
encounter can potentially clear the brain, enhance perception, teach us
something, move us or amuse us, yet how seldom it happens. One of the reasons
we read books a second or third time is to recapture that initial jolt. How
many readers have ever found pleasure – real helpless delight – in The Cantos or Joyce Carol Oates’ latest stillborn
fiction? At best, such works are an onerous duty, almost a punishment for being
so credulous.
R.L. Barth
sent me a link to a story about the latest illiteracy -- “un-alived” used as a
synonym for “committed suicide” or “took his own life,” as in “Nirvana frontman
Kurt Cobain un-alived himself at 27.’” I’ve always considered grammar as a
guide to thought, a way to encourage clarity. Apparently, some sad soul out there
prizes originality and attention-seeking over comprehension. In response, Bob
has written a pleasing little couplet titled “An Epitaph for Richard Cory”:
“Here lies a
man who thrived
Until he
un-alived.”
You will
recall E.A. Robinson’s poem or at least Simon and Garfunkel’s adaptation. Larkin
uses a typically commonplace image to clarify his thought: “And I use ‘enjoy’
in the commonest of senses, the sense in which we leave a radio on or off.”
[Larkin’s “The
Pleasure Principle,” written in 1957, is collected in his Required Writing: Miscellaneous Pieces 1955-1982 (1983).]
5 comments:
While I agree on "unalived," it does seem relevant that this is, as far as I've seen, an unfortunately necessary construction in certain internet forums and the like in which certain words pertaining to suicide, murder and death are censored by software. I might have considered other word choices, but I think not all fault falls on the users of the term.
I see "unalive" frequently on Twitter, where words like "kill" or "murder" or "suicide" are not censored.
There was also a controversy about the use of the word in an exhibition: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2024/08/12/museum-criticized-for-nirvana-exhibition-saying-kurt-cobain-un-alived-himself
So no, it's not just a forum thing, even if it was how it was started.
It's people deliberately making language ugly.
I should say though that "unalive" is used to mean "kill". Hence "unalived himself".
Something Pauline Kael said is a guidepost for me: "If art isn't entertainment, what is it? Punishment?"
The introduction of "un-alived" is part of the continuing trend to create a distance from the harsh realities of being by those who have the luxury to do so. Technology, innovation and money has permitted a select part of the population to avoid the messiness of life. Just over 200 years ago, the act of giving birth continued to be the riskiest, messiest event in the life of a young woman. Death was not unusual. Today, the rooms are lovely and the procedure can be almost painless, for those with the means to have it so. In manyparts of the world, it remains high risk and messy.
We have seen that desire for comfort creep into our language for years. Note that those who speak of not wanting to hear words that trigger them are usually more well-educated, higher income individuals. People who work for an hourly wage in a Kansas slaughter house are less likely to talk about words referring to death "triggering" them. They are working with death every day.
In some cases, I welcome the change in language to bring clarity. We have started to replace some words that inaccurately or inappropriately "defined" people: "Indians" to "Indigenous people" and "slaves" to "enslaved people," for example, have eliminated labels to better describe the lives of these people.
"Un-alived," however, seems to be a "comfort word" to avoid the pain of suicide. I, like many of us, have lost people to suicide and in no case would I say they "un-alived" themselves. In some cases, I also would not say they "killed" themselves because to say that implies a sense of violence and intent. "Kill" and "quell" have the same Germanic origin, yet to "kill" and to "quell" have very different feels.
We know that suicide is often driven by a desire to end suffering, whether that is physical or mental pain, so the individual may not seek to "kill themselves" so much as they want to end their existence. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say someone "quelled" themself as a way of acknowledging the desire to bring quiet and peace.
I refer to incidents of suicide as the person "ended their life" because that is, indeed, what happened.
Related: https://www.google.com/search?q=SERIAL+UNALIVER&oq=SERIAL+UNALIVER&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg9qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Post a Comment