A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne.docx
《A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne.docx（8页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
AFreeHandtoRefuseEverythingPoliticsandIntricacyintheWorkofJHPrynne
“AFreeHandtoRefuseEverything”PoliticsandIntricacyintheWorkofJ.H.Prynne
Abstract:
ThisessayconsiderstherelationshipbetweenthepoetandhisaudienceinthesmallpressmilieuinwhichJ.H.Prynnepublishedhispoetrybetween1968and1999.Prynne’swritingrecognisesbutresiststhemarginalstatusofpoetrywiththecultureasawholeandexaminesitsrelationshiptootherformsoflanguage,particularlythatofeconomicsystems.Hissequence?
?
WordOrder?
?
（1989）employsalanguagethatre?
?
imaginestheworldintermsthatreflecttheprioritiesofagifteconomy,whilethetextspublishedduringthe1990sandsinceevaluatethelinguisticpracticesoftheWesternstatethroughjuxtapositionwiththeformsandrelationsofcontemporarynon?
?
Westernsocieties,particularlyofChinaandtheMiddleEast.
Keywords:
poetryandeconomicspoliticspoeticintricacy
Author:
Dr.RodMenghamisReaderinModernEnglishLiteratureattheUniversityofCambridge,whereheisalsoCuratorofWorksofArtatJesusCollege.Heisauthorof?
?
TheDescentofLanguage?
?
（1993）andotherscholarlybooksonCharlesDickens,EmilyBrontёandHenryGreen,aswellasabookofpoemsentitled?
?
Unsung:
NewandSelectedPoems?
?
（1996,2001）.
题目：
“拒绝一切的自由之手”：
蒲龄恩诗歌中的政治性与复杂性
内容提要：
本文考察了J.H.蒲龄恩与他的小圈子读者之间的关系。
他于1968年到1999年之间在这个诗歌出版小圈子里发表了他的诗歌作品。
蒲龄恩的诗歌创作以整体文化作为背景来认识和抵制诗歌的边缘状态，并审视它与其它语言形式的关系，特别是与经济体系之形式的关系。
他的组诗《词序》（1989年）使用一种重新对世界进行想象的语言以反映礼物经济的优越性。
他在上世纪90年代以及后来发表的作品，通过将西方社会的语言实践与西方以外社会（尤其是中国和中东）的形式与关系并置，对西方的语言实践进行评价。
关键词：
诗歌与经济学政治复杂性
作者简介：
罗德•孟罕博士，剑桥大学英国现代文学高级讲师，出版过《语言的堕落》等著作。
Foroverthirtyyears,from1968to1999,Prynne’spoetrywaswrittenandpublishedwithinacontextofnetworksofdistributionandreceptionwhichwerenottheeconomicnetworksavailableto,oremployedby,poetswithamoreconventional,moreeasilyassimilable,poetic.Hisworkwasframedbytheavant?
?
gardeactivityofjournalssuchas?
?
TheEnglishIntelligencer?
?
and?
?
TheGrossetesteReview?
?
andbysmallpressessuchasCapeGoliard,Trigram,FerryPress,StreetEditions,EquipageandBarque.Poetsoperatingwithinthiscircuitcouldrelyontheiraudiencehavinginsomedegreethestatusofinterlocutors;theywerenotwritingwithoutknowingtowhomtheywerespeaking;neitherwerethereaderstheywereaddressingbeingconstruedasreflectionsofauniversalsubject.Atthesametime,theexperimentalnatureoftheirworkonlanguageextendedwhatmightotherwiseseemtheveryrestrictedscopeoftheiractivities,byholdingoutthepossibilityofconstitutingatsomepointinthefuturetheconditionsofapragmaticsituationthatwouldnothaveexistedbefore.Thepossibilityarose,andstillarises,oftheworkcreatingitsownreaders,inafulfilmentofthescenariooutlinedbyMerleau?
?
Pontyinhisbook?
?
TheProseoftheWorld?
?
:
“Thepublicatwhomtheartistaimsisnotgiven;itisapublictobeelicitedbyhiswork.Theothersofwhomhethinksarenotempirical“others”oreven?
?
humanity?
?
conceivedasaspecies;itisothersoncetheyhavebecomesuchthathecanlivewiththem”（86）.
Thepointaboutsuchanavant?
?
gardepoetryisthatthisforwardprojectionisintensionwithanawarenessofthewaythatsubjectivityisdeterminedhistoricallyatthemomentofproductionofthetext.Thereisanunusuallydirectanddeclarativetreatmentoftheurgentnecessityforsettingupandmaintainingthistensionin“L’ExtasedeM.Poher”fromthe1971volume,?
?
Brass?
?
:
Whydoweaskthat,asifwindinthe
telegraphwireswerenailedupinsome
kindofanswer,formalderangementof
thespecies.Daysandweeksspinbyin
theatres,gardenslaidoutinrubbish,this
isthefreehandtorefuseeverything.
No
questionprovokesthealpharhythmby
thetreeinourskyturnedover;certain
thingsfollow:
whoistheoccasion
nowwhat
isthequestionin
whichshe
whatforisaversion
ofwhen,i.e.
somepaymentabouttimeagainandhow
“cansequenceconduce”toorderasmore
thanthequestion:
moregardens:
list
theplantsasdistinct
fromlateral
fronttobackornot
grass“themost
successfulplantonour
heart?
?
lungby?
?
passandintopassionslicedintobright
slivers,theyellowwrappingofwhatwedo.
Whoisit:
whatpersoncouldbegeneralised
onabasisof“specifically”sexualdamage,
thetownscapeofthatquestion.
Weather
ofthewantonelegy,takeachipoutof
yourrightthumb.Freudianhistoryagainmakes
thethermalbank:
here
credit92%
a/cpayeeonly,reduceto
nowwhat
laidoutinthebody
sub?
?
normal
orgrassetc,hayasatouchofthe
socialselfputonatrafficisland.Tie
thatup,overfornexttime,otherwisethere
isakindofvisualconcurrence;
yet
theimmediatebodyofwealthisnot
history,body?
?
fluidnotdynastic.No
poeticgabblewillsurvivewhichfails
Whatappearstobetheisolationandplacingofafragmentofscientificdiscourse―“themost/successfulplantonour/heart?
?
lungby?
?
/pass”―passesrapidlybutimperceptiblyintoahead?
?
oncollisionwithanobviouslyexperimentalpoeticdictionthatcompletelyunsettlestheregister:
“andintopassionslicedintobright/slivers,theyellowwrappingofwhatwedo.”Herewehaveanalmosthyperbolicallysystematicapplicationofthebasicavant?
?
gardeprincipleofmontage,whichunderminesthesequentialcoherenceofthosediscursivepracticesthatwouldotherwise“conduce”tothekindofsocialandpoliticalorderthatdependsonthesubordination,orbracketing,ofdiscourseslikepoetry,becausetheserepresentthethreatofapotentiallymuchfreerattitudetowardsthedominantsyntaxofhistory.Lateroninthepoem,thereisaquiteviolentinterpolationofscientificdiscourse,whichrepresentsarecognitionwithinthepoemoftheneedtomeasuretheeffectsofaculturallymuchmorepowerfuldescriptionoftheconditionsinwhichthesubjectofhistoryhastoemerge.Theactualmaterialinvolved―“1.Steroidmetaphrast/2.Hyper?
?
bondingoftheinsect/3.6%memory,etc”―makesitclearthatwhatthiscollisionoflanguagesandsubjectmatterseffectsisthedisplacementofthesubjectofanthropologicalhumanism;adisplacement,moreover,inaparticulardirectionandforaparticularpurpose.Thealternativetothisdiscursiveconfrontationissatirisedinaludicrousevocationofthehistoricavant?
?
gardeasanadvancecolumn,inmarchingorder,notinadvanceofanutopianformofsocietytocome,butheadingupanentirearmyofphilistinerecuperation,“stuffingitsdrum.”Theapparentlydestructiveeffectofthisaccentuatedmontage,this“verbalsmash?
?
up,”destroysrecognizableformsoforderandcoherence,producesdebris,producesrubbish.Buttheproductionofrubbishisessentialsinceitistheinevitableoutcomeoftestingthelimitsofthesequentialproceduresofanideologizingrationality.?
?
①Paradoxically,themomentwhenyouthinkyouareinfullcontrolofyourownsubjectivityispreciselywhenyou“putyourchoiceinthehandsofthetown/clerk.”Thisinformationisgivenintheformofaninstructionwhichteststhelimitsofthereader’sowndependenceontheconditionsof“statedorder.”Discursivefriction,then,providesameansofturningartbackintoan“intricatepresencein/ourentireculture”;threadingitbackintothefabricofthewhole,makingitintrinsictosocialpractice.
Prynne’sdeliberateconfrontationwithbourgeoisconsumercultureinthelate1960sandearly1970sisreconfiguredinsubsequentwork.Bythelate1970sandearly1980s,whenseveralAmerican“Language”poetswereformulatingthenatureoftheirdesiretosubvertcapitalistculturebytextualmeans,Prynnehadalreadyovertakenthisformalismontheroutetoadifferentmodel.Bythemid?
?
1980s,several“Language”writershadissuedtheoreticalbulletinsrecommendingtheproductionofpoetryinwhichcapitalistproceduresofaccumulationwerederangedbyamethodicalsquanderingofmeaning;hoardingreplacedbyspending.Prynneseizedontheeconomicvocabulary（“themarket?
?
economymodelseemstometofitthecaseverywell”?
?
②）toarguetheresulting“freedom”ofchoiceamongthepotentialmeaningswasnomorethancosmetic:
“Giving”and“taking”meanverydifferentthingsinthecontextofacapitalisteconomy.Thecolloquialphrase“giveandtake”ishabituallyusedinaspiritofreciprocity―itstartstoreconciletermsthatarenormallymarkedfordisagreement,althoughitstilldoesnotsinktheobviousdifferencesbetweenthem.Inagifteconomy,theactivityofgivingwouldberegardedasverymuchthesamesortoftransactionastheactivityoftaking.Incertaingifteconomies,accordingtoMauss,itispossiblefor“onlyasinglewordtocover［whatweunderstandby］buyandsell,borrowandlend”（Mauss30）;seeminglyantitheticaloperationsareexpressedbyexactlythesameword.Awholevarietyofexchanges―offood,marriagepartners,possessions,charms,land,labour,services,religiousoffices（nearlyallalludedtoin?
?
WordOrder?
?
）―arenotseenasbeingdiscrete;whatwouldbethoughtofasheterogeneoussocialphenomenaintheWestareregardedaspartofthesameeconomy,thesameorderofmeaning.AccordingtoMauss,“eachphenomenoncontainsallthethreadsofwhichthesocialfabriciscomposed”（Mauss1）;thisnowseemsastrangeideainacapitalistsociety,butitispreciselywhatPrynnetriestomaketheintrinsicmethodforproducinghistext:
eachverbalphenomenoncontainsmany,ifnotall,ofthethreadsofwhichthewholefabricofthetextiscomposed.Thisvocabulary
升级会员 