Los nuevos valores

In this chapter I consider the other half o f the double-stranded tradition for the dramatic monologue that I argued is Duffy's inheritance, that is, the ironic form inherited from Browning. Before I discuss Irony and my choice o f poems from Duffy's four collections it is worthwhile remarking on a small but significant difference in the way that the two poets entitle their dramatic monologues: Browning names his characters as individuals, for example, 'Bishop Blougram' and 'Mr Sludge' but Duffy does not. Her titles are usually a clue to the issues interrogated by the poem, for example, 'Psychopath'

identifies the category o f character that is interrogated by her poem, whereas Browning's 'Porphyria's Lover' does not indicate what the content might be.

The rhetorical strategies adopted by writers to produce an ironising reading-response have been extensively theorised since Booth's seminal historical account o f Irony, and his interrogation o f its various categories and their function in different genres.1 I do not think it necessary to re-articulate his findings here. I have already discussed in my Introduction, Part III, the shifting ambiguous nature of'irony'; my use o f the conditional phrase 'potential/opportunity for irony'; and the positioning and self-positioning of writers and readers in the generation o f irony according to Hutcheon's concept of

• 2

'discursive communities'.

The potential for irony, and in some poems an unmistakable positioning o f readers to respond ironically, alters the way in which address functions in ironic monologues. My summary o f this chapter will discuss this difference in address, the content o f the

monologues, their social and literary context, their significance in Duffy's work, and their relation to the ironic tradition inherited from Browning.

In my readings I shall continue the method used in Chapter One. The poems analysed in this chapter are; 'Head O f English' {SFN 1985), 'Poet For Our Times' {TOC 1990), 'Translating The English, 1989' (TOC 1990), 'What Price?' {SFN 1985), 'Fraud' (MT 1993), and 'Psychopath' {SM 1987) . I have chosen these particular dramatic monologues because as a group they encompass the wide range o f ironising strategies, and the variety o f characterisations and subject matter that Duffy's ironic poems display.

'HEAD OF ENGLISH' {SFN 1985)

This dramatic monologue has five six-line stanzas and depicts a scenario in which the head teacher o f a school English Department is introducing a visiting poet to a class o f girls. My analysis o f the initial reading will include a discussion o f the time scheme and the location o f the narration, which seems at times to be inconsistent with the

characterisation o f the protagonist.

The first stanza introduces the visiting poet to the Head of Department's class: Today we have a poet in the class.

A real live poet with a published book. Notice the inkstained fingers girls. Perhaps we're going to witness verse hot from the press. Who knows. Please show your appreciation by clapping. Not too loud. Now

An unusual feature o f this poem is the doubled intradiegetic audience. The audience is plural, there is a classroom o f girls present, but the presence o f the poet adds a second, different category o f listener to the speaker's introduction. Because the poet is present,

the speaker's address is divided, that is, when she addresses the pupils she knows that her remarks will also be heard by the poet. The ambiguity o f the speaker's divided address is the first marker for an ironic reading o f the speaker, and the implication o f irony is strengthened by the presence o f the poet. There is a tone o f ridicule directed towards the poet in the personal comments on her achievement and the possibly metaphorical

reference to her 'inkstained fingers'. These patronising remarks would not necessarily be ironic if the poet was not present: the remarks might read as cheerful enthusiasm to an audience o f young pupils. However, as the poet is present this provides the opportunity for an ironic reading that converts the speaker's remarks to a veiled criticism o f her, and implies that the teacher has a reactionary attitude to contemporary poetry in her reference to 'verse hot from the press'. Mermin has discussed the presence o f the 'audience in the poem' and how this reflects back on to the utterance and characterisation o f the speaker.3 She argues that, even when totally passive, the auditor/listener, as a presence in the 'world' o f the speaker, has the potential to respond to the speaker and therefore is active in the characterisation o f the protagonist. The presence of the silent, visiting poet provides an opportunity for an ironic reading because it changes the tone o f the teacher's introduction to the pupils.

The teacher's reactionary attitude to contemporary poetry is substantiated in the second stanza:

sit up straight and listen. Remember the lesson on assonance, for not all poems, sadly, rhyme these days. Still. Never mind. Whispering's, as always, out o f bounds - but do feel free to raise some questions. After all we're paying forty pounds.

The instruction to ’sit up straight and listen’ carries an implication that the ensuing session with the poet is not going to be fim and absorbing, rather it will require concentration and determination to maintain attention. The speaker is depicted with a preference for end-rhyme and infers that, in its absence, assonance is an inferior poetic device. This preference for end-rhyme is wittily ironised by Duffy’s rhyming use of 'bounds' and 'pounds'. The speaker's remarks 'Still. Never mind.' and her reference to the visitor's fee depict her as resigned about contemporary developments in poetry and resentful at being obliged to recognise 'modern' poets. The line 'After all we're paying forty pounds' is unlikely to have been addressed to the children, and is more

convincingly read as the teacher's unspoken thought.

The third stanza begins with the implication that the school is in an urban area where a percentage o f immigrant children do not have English as their first language:

Those o f you with English Second Language see me after break. We're fortunate

to have this person in our midst. Season o f mists and so on and so forth. I've written quite a bit o f poetry myself, am doing Kipling with the Lower Fourth.

The reference to the poet as 'this person' functions to avoid outright citation o f Duffy herself and permit a wider reading o f the 'poet in the class" than a self-reflexive, autobiographical reference. However, the phrase also functions to succinctly

characterise the speaker's articulation as a derogatory attitude towards the poet, derived from the English 'class system' which positions the poet as unranked and socially inferior to the teacher. The derogatory sense of'this person' indicates the speaker's ironic

The potential for irony is compounded by both the Head o f English's citation o f Keats' poem 'To Autumn' as a cliched reference to the Autumn term, and her inability to complete the first line o f the poem which has the status o f a sacred text in the canon o f English poetry. However, the speaker's articulation of'Season o f mists and so on and so forth' is problematic: it seems unlikely that the speaker would continue her inept

reference to Keats' poem to the extent of'and so forth'. This seems attributable to the writer herself rather than her speaking character, and is a diversion from the

characterisation o f the teacher to Duffy's perspective; it suggests her own somewhat dismissive opinion o f repeated and inept citation o f Keats' line as a seasonal indicator and as the exemplar of'great poetry'.

The final two lines o f the stanza are located in a different time from the speaker's main articulation in front o f the class: 'I've written quite a bit o f poetry myself...'. These are remarks possibly made earlier to the intradiegetic visiting poet who is not 'voiced' in the monologue, and therefore cannot relate them inside the speaker's narration for readers to overhear. This indicates a hyperdiegetic voice that interrupts the teacher's narration to report the earlier remarks she had made to the poet. This disjunction is part o f Duffy's ironising strategy. I shall discuss the use o f more than one 'voice' in the monologue in my analysis o f ironising strategies after this initial reading.

The teacher's citation o f Kipling exemplifies the Victorian, imperialist, jingoistic, end- rhymed poetry that was traditionally taught in schools until the inclusion o f twentieth- century and contemporary poetry into school curricula.

There is another ironising intrusion of a second voice in the fourth stanza: Right. That's enough from me. On with the Muse.

Open a window at the back. We don't want winds o f change about the place.

Take notes, but don't write reams. Just an essay on the poet's themes. Fine. Off we go.

Convince us that there's something we don't know.

The intrusion, 'We don't/want winds o f change about the place' ironises through its juxtaposition with the teacher's instruction to her class 'Open a window at the back', and

implies Duffy's comment on the reactionary teacher's attitude to contemporary poetry. It is a hyperdiegetic interruption in Duffy's 'voice' rather than an example o f Duffy

ventriloquising the speaker because the teacher would be unlikely to make the remark about 'winds o f change' to her pupils.

'Convince us that there is something we don't know' powerfully depicts the supercilious, authoritarian attitude o f the speaker: her comment implies that she knows all there is to know about poetry, more than the practising, published poet, and at the same time implies that the visiting poet does not have the language skills and power o f argument to overcome the challenge. If this is read in the context o f Duffy's degree in Philosophy and the recognition o f her already critically acclaimed status as an important new poet, this is a rewarding opportunity for readers to ironise the speaker.

The opening o f the final stanza suggests that time has elapsed, the poetry session has completed, and the teacher is dismissing her pupils; the poet is still present:

Well. Really. Run along now girls. I'm sure that gave an insight to an outside view. Applause will do. Thank you

very much for coming here today. Lunch in the hall? Do hang about. Unfortunately I have to dash. Tracy will show you out.

The two single words that begin the stanza suggest that the teacher feels affronted by what she has heard in the poetry session but cannot find the words to express this. The proximity o f the two opposites, 'insight' and 'outside view', calls attention to Duffy's ironising construction o f the line. The use o f 'outside' marginalises the visiting poet and her work by suggesting that they are not part o f the community o f the teacher and her pupils who study mainstream poetry: in effect the speaker is 'othering' the poet and setting the class, and the poetry that they study, in opposition to the visiting poet.

Finally, the teacher responds to the unheard poet's enquiry about lunch facilities and dismisses her to the attention o f a schoolgirl, with the implication that the speaker has more important matters to attend to.

Ironising Strategies in 'Head o f English'

Duffy is present in two different ways in this dramatic monologue: firstly she is represented by the silent intradiegetic visiting poet whose presence creates the

opportunity for an ironic reading o f the speaker's narrative; and secondly, she is 'heard' as an ironising hyperdiegetic voice that is constructed with reported remarks that the

teacher made outside the classroom scenario, and remarks that are more convincingly attributed to Duffy herself, for example, 'We don't/want winds o f change about the place'.

The silenced visiting poet who is part o f the speaker's intradiegetic audience functions as a victimised 'stooge' whose presence facilitates the reactionary, patronising

characteristics o f the speaker. In my discussion o f the production of'Sympathy' in dramatic monologues (Chapter One), I argued that the presence o f a demonised 'other' produces a more sympathetic response from readers for the protagonist o f the

monologue. There is a similar mechanism working here: the presence o f an

unempowered visitor is the first indicator for an ironic reading o f the speaker; the totality o f the visitor’s lack o f power further deepens the irony that is potentially generated by the poem.

While acknowledging that all irony is an indirect mode o f criticism, I suggest that Duffy’s second ironising strategy, the intrusive hyperdiegetic 'voice', is a more subtle method o f creating opportunities for an ironic reading o f the speaker's narrative than the strategy o f the 'unvoiced' visitor. Once the hyperdiegetic function is recognised, it is possible to physically abstract sections o f the text itself that are more convincingly read as Duffy's intrusions into the speaker's narration.

This more subtle mode o f generating irony, the hyperdiegetic 'voice', functions to empower Duffy to respond as/for the silent poet by creating a voiceover effect to the speaker's narration. This constructs a complex narrative for 'Head o f English'.

In this statement that Duffy responds 'as/for the silent poet' I intend to argue for an autobiographical link between Duffy herself and the silent victim o f the Head o f English. Duffy has avoided outright self-identification with the poet by the distancing strategy o f referring to the visiting poet as 'this person' in the protagonist's ironic praise o f the poet (third stanza). However, the ironising strategies that target the protagonist's reactionary attitude, and the identification o f the 'victimised' silent visitor as a contemporary

published poet strongly indicate that Duffy speaks for herself and for all poets that have found themselves in a similar situation.

Address

Duffy's protagonist identifies her audience as the unvoiced poet and the 'girls' in the class. This direct, gendered intradiegetic address also has the potential to function as a direct, gendered extradiegetic address to female readers. The speaker cites two male poets in her reference to canonic poetry; this may suggest to some readers that gender issues concerning the production and distribution of poetry are under interrogation in 'Head o f English' but Duffy does not gender the victimised visiting poet. An extract from Duffy's Bete Noire interview indicates that it is reactionary opinion rather than gender issues that is the target o f her poem. Duffy was questioned 'What were your influences? Who did you read and enjoy and learn from? Her answer included the following:

I mean at school the first conscious thing I remember writing was from Keats, and I remember learning the 'Ode to a Nightingale'. And there had been a lot o f more obvious people before that. You see I did at that age actually write 'thou' and 'but soft' and all those. But when I got past that I think it was Jacques Prevert. I had a hairdressing job at the weekends as a teenager and at that time Penguin published books at half a crown almost by the day, for there was the modern poets series for British writers and the Penguin modern European series. I would just go and buy one. I wouldn't even look who'd written it, because it was modem. And in that way I had quite a good grounding in all the good late- greats.4

Duffy's statement identifies her own alignment with the praxis o f contemporary poetics. There is a suggestion o f antipathy towards the poetics o f eighteenth and nineteenth century Romanticism in 'You see I did at that age actually write "thou" and "but soft" and all those. But when I got past that...', although, Duffy's own practise includes elements o f Romantic individualism alongside her depiction o f the power o f socio-economics in the formation o f social subjectivity.

This alignment with contemporary poetics is exemplified in the same interview in her response to a question on which poetic techniques and ways o f working/playing with language appealed to her:

I like rhyme a lot. I probably instinctively want to rhyme more than I actually do. In rewrites, I'll quite often take rhymes out, if I think they are heavy or laden. I like echoes and assonance, and that part o f you that is watching what you are doing when you are writing poems is on the look-out for that. I was more conscious o f what I did with rhyme in Selling Manhattan. I was aware that the poetry was becoming more flexible. I was trying not to repeat myself too much, to take more risks than my early writing. I had a good year at home in that time, and I would experiment and throw away. I was trying more new things. What I wanted was a freer form.5

Her statement suggests that she enjoys rhyme in the way that many do, especially children, but that she recognises the importance and rewards o f innovative 'play' with language and form. In the context o f Duffy's remarks, 'Head o f English' appears to encapsulate a critique o f reactionary opinion and a valorisation of the continuing development and publication o f contemporary poetry.

Kipling and Keats are probably identified because they are widely-quoted representative examples o f the canon, and likely to be cited by reactionary critics o f poetry. Although