multiple contexts; thus these are substructures against the singularity of expression. The substructures impose a construct on the poem which enforce the endless possibilities of meaning, correlating to varying matrices of the poet’s imposition. The creation of a poem which reflects varying meanings and subsumes any definition to given analogical confines, leads to the development of a complex image whose expression is encompassed by a sequence of overlapping and interacting matrices. By defining the subjective poetic voice as a personal one—which is dominated by transient and ever-present secondary voices—Prynne enforces a dialectic counterpoint to the notion of a singular poetic voice. The poetic
construct of the poem gives way to a poetic voice that is successive, highly contrastive, and has indeterminate origins. To solidify the indeterminate definition, the poem has a decisive, residual effect on the reader, and through these means communicates a tacit knowledge to clarify the vagaries of experience and memory of a person dealing with trauma. Prynne’s war represents a late-modernist poetic which functions as an experience through language rather than a representation by language. For Prynne, the act of regaining the lost truth and the reassertion of the self may be the only point at which, “the wound smiles” (219).
44 |
Ian Friend, “First Notes on Daylight 2007-8,” Indian ink, gouache and crayon on Khadi paper. 23 x 30 cm. Private collection, New York