A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne文档格式.docx

A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne文档格式.docx

《A Free Hand to Refuse EverythingPolitics and Intricacy in the Work of JHPrynne文档格式.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文档格式.docx（8页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

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&

#8226;

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?

/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?

）―arenotseenasbeingdiscrete;

whatwouldbethoughtofasheterogeneoussocialphenomenaintheWestareregardedaspartofthesameeconomy,thesameorderofmeaning.AccordingtoMauss,“eachphenomenoncontainsallthethreadsofwhichthesocialfabriciscomposed”（Mauss1）;

thisnowseemsastrangeideainacapitalistsociety,butitispreciselywhatPrynnetriestomaketheintrinsicmethodforproducinghistext:

eachverbalphenomenoncontainsmany,ifnotall,ofthethreadsofwhichthewholefabricofthetextiscomposed.Thisvocabulary