How do poets use ‘voice’ to instil their poems with personality? Consider with reference to three poets

For verse to be truly personal, a section is needed. It is through the spokesperson of a poet that the reader sess glean approximately soul of that poets identity and nature. Who argon they? What atomic issue forth 18 they trying to maintain? Why? One could even go so far as to say that the vocalise of a verse form or poet is funda workforcetal to its aesthetic value and readability without a distinct and pick out sound, how can we recognize a verse form from the surrounding, ambient babble? It is the part which endears a poet to the reader without a articulate, how can we locate with a poet? All these questions must be considered c atomic number 18fully. The representative of a poet can be a vehicle for governmental, personal, and social expression, as well as ingrainling a poem with a disposition of constitution one might say the function of a poets voice is to stamp their poem with their identity.It is the idea of an antecedents voice, rather than the voice itself which d lancinates us towards the source as an entity someone with whom we can identify, converse and insure. The actual process of reading may be, on one level, entirely one-sided, exactly in reading a poem (or any cover of literature for that matter) we bring as much to the work as we take from it. In this fashion, reading a poem is non one-sided at all, and is instead a rich progression towards a higher(prenominal) understanding from the reader. In the end, it comes d accept to the age-old question do linguistic process on a paginate in a closed book actually symbolize anything until they are read, and even when they are, is it possible to be two voiceless and meaningful?It has been argued in Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory (Bennett & Royle, 1999) that every literary text has a voice, be it that of an omnipotent and omniscient god-like authorial voice, or a character of the authors creation. According to this theory, even the biology t extbook that most mundane and impersonal of publications is inf consumptiond with the voice(s) of its author(s). As Roland Barthes points out in his landmark essay The dying of the Author (Image, Music, Text, 1977), this is the sole reason why authors flummox their name on a piece of work. An author go a management lend their name to their novel/poem in order to distinguish it from other novels/poems. Ultimately, however, Barthes argues that this is hollow an author is nothing more than a product of his or her society and background, and consequently, the author cannot claim some sort of absolute authority over his or her text because, in some ship canal, he or she did not write it. In other words, it is writing that makes the author and not vice versa. in that respect are, however, flaws in Barthes argument, which pull up stakes be analysed further on. It is important at this stage, however, to make a displace distinction betwixt the author and the voice in order to avoid any confusion that may arise. In homophiley ways, the author and the voice of a poem or any work of fiction are intrinsically linked the author is the voice and the voice is the author, in much the same way that Sylvia Plath is the voice in her poems or her work of fiction, The Bell Jar. There is no getting around the fact that we hear Jean-Paul Sartres voice in The Age of Reason and Nausea, or Fontanes voice in Effi Briest. The same can be said of the poets I have chosen Linton Kwesi Johnsons voice is clear and distinct, as are those of Tom Leonard and Sylvia Plath. In this way, one might say, the author or poet and their voice are one and the same indistinguishable from each other.In other ways, though, it is easy to trip up and give way muddled in the literary thorn bush that blocks our path whenever we try to make a generalisation. A novel like Anthony Burgess A Clockwork Orange (1962) displays no apparent sign of the authors voice indeed it is written in a row entirely of his own creation (NadSat the disjointed, disorderly jargon of a future rejected generation) and through the voice of the novels protagonist, Alex. Obvious questions arise. Whose voice is Burgess talk with? His own or Alexs? Can they be both? Of course, Alex is a creation of Burgess mind and therefore the voice is ultimately that of Burgess himself he thought of the character, devote pen to paper, and put words in Alexs mouth. But how far does this go? To what extent is Alex his own entity, quit to evolve and grow within the limits and boundaries imposed by his author? How far and to what extent is Alex simply a mouthpiece for Burgess voice moralising and ominous. In the end, we are never really sure whether Alex has been cured or not, or (which is more interesting) whether the author even knows. The same theme is explored in Flann OBriens novel, At Swim-Two-Birds (1939), in which issues of author, voice, and even the idea of a character, are thrown into question.But how does this relate to poetry and the issue of voice? To start with, the same problems of discerning the voice from the author are present, but much more sharp, in the poets I have chosen. I have deliberately picked poets who speak in their own voice as it were, in an attempt to highlight the different motives with which voice is used. For role model, in Sylvia Plaths poems, voice is used to express deep and intimate emotional good sense of smellings, and in some cases, psychological trauma as in her moving poem protoactinium. In this poem, Plaths voice is clearly enunciated, and the effect of this is to give the reader a powerful insight into the entirely kit and caboodle of the poets mind. The poem deals with Plaths relationship with her dead father, and how she must reconcile his past and her roots in a post-war world. As the poem progresses, however, the reader comes to realise that public address system is not the bte noir we suppose him to be and instead we understand that h e is an integral part of Plath as a person. A part she has come to hate and cogitate with her father. A part she can never escape Daddy, daddy, you bastard, Im through. (80)Plaths voice comes through in a number of cunning ways here. It come overms as though she is addressing her father, and therefore speaks in the offset printing(a) person singular for example I used to pray to recover you. (14) As a result, the poem seems all the more fervent and personal perhaps because we are listening in on a one-sided conversation which we feel we should not be listening to. The effect is akin to reading someones personal letter, when feelings of guilt compete with an inbred curiosity about other peoples intimate details. In this way, her anguish is eloquently expressed in the first stanzaYou do not do, you do not doAny more, black shoeIn which I have lived like a footFor thirty years, poor and white,Barely daring to breathe or Achoo. 5 (1-5)But we could also make a case that the Daddy in the poem is not completely her father (and perhaps a part of herself), but her husband, Ted Hughes, as well. For example, towards the end of the poem, various subtle references to marriage are made And I said I do, I do. (67) The idea of two men (the two men in Plaths life) is brought up again when we are told that If Ive killed one man, Ive killed two (71), and a curb reference to the poets marriage is made at line 72 The vampire who said he was you/And drank my pedigree for a year,/Seven years if you want to know (72-74). It is almost as though Plath is being suffocated by the omniscient and omnipotent men who surround her both alive and dead. We can only understand this because Plath has instilled her poem with her own voice had the poem been written in an impersonal, detached way, completely devoid of any discernible voice, the intensely personal sense we get of Plath being smothered would be lost.But the strong and clear voice that comes through also raises issues about Plaths identity who she feels she is and is not. She says at one point that she thinks she may well be a Jew (35), when in fact she is not. This is echoed by her despondent, resonant cry in a foreign lyric Ich, ich, ich, ich. (27) It is clear that the poem has a strong personality, and this personality is only made possible with the presence of Plaths voice.A link can be made here to another of Plaths poems, The Bee Meeting, which also raises the question of identity. unlike Daddy, this poem is not addressed or aimed at anyone in particular, but this does not mean that it is any less personal, and it still retains Plaths voice as she is again speaking in the first person. The poem reinforces the poets sense of abject loneliness in a world populated by well-to-do figures of society who (it seems) neither really care for, nor understand her. In The Bee Meeting, Plath joins various members of the parish to collect honey from the white stack away(34). When the other figures don thei r veils and heavy outer garments for protection, however, their identities are lost, and this f chastenens Plath, who does not want to be lost in turnIs it some operation that is taking place? 30It is the surgeon my neighbours are waiting for,This ghost in a green helmet,Shining gloves and white suit.Is it the butcher, the grocer, the postman, someone I know? 35(30-35)Plaths voice comes across most strongly, however, when she tells us of her fear and her nakedness while all others are clothed. We are told that she is nude statue as a chicken neck, does nobody love me? (6) and Now I am milkweed silk, the bees will not notice./They will not smell my fear, my fear, my fear. (9-10) Clearly, a tortured, lonely, forlorn voice is at work here, openhearted vainly for understanding in the hopelessly detached way that abject melancholia brings. Her tired, sad, frail voice is comprehend at the end Whose is that long white box in the grove, what have they accomplished, why am I cold. (55) Th e lack of a question mark at the end implies that an answer is not expected, perhaps because Plath knows that she will never receive one.The subtlety in the image of the coffin-like long white box hints at secret depths to Plaths feelings depths which are both limitless and moving. We could go so far as to say that Plath associates and identifies herself with the hive and its mad bees confused, chaotic, and directionless. By putting the bees to sleep, the hive, as snug as a virgin (34), is violated. In the same way perhaps, Plath sees herself as violated or raped by the world around her. Once again, it is only through her powerful voice that we understand these emotions.Problems of identity are strongly linked in both poems (the Ich, ich, ich, of Daddy and images of lost identity in The Bee Hive Meeting), and this question surfaces again in the poems of Linton Kwesi Johnson. In a poem like Mekkin Histri, Johnsons voice is immediately clear and challenging now tell mi something/mi stah govahment man/tell mi something. (1-3) Johnsons voice searches, accuses, demandshow lang yu really feelyu coulda keep wi andah heel 5wen di trute through revealbout how yu grab an stealbout how yu mek yu crooked dealmek yu crooked deal? (4-9)It is clear that the voice coming through here is a purely political one, and the colloquial language that Johnson employs reinforces his poems sense of otherness and certainity. The language is both estrange and familiar, both intimidating and soothing. But it is also a collective voice a voice of the people, but not all the people. It is a voice demanding complete and radical change, an alien voice that has become disillusioned with the society that surrounds it. The title of the poem, Mekkin Histri implies a time of great change, and this is exactly what Johnson was doing at a time when the British establishment was threatening to revert back to an entirely conservative, jingoistic and grievous bodily harm mindset. It is not surprisi ng that Linton Kwesi Johnson has earned himself the nickname of The Prophet, who, with his eclectic mix of dub beats and chanting poetry, captured the political heart and soul of Britains black youth in the 1980s, and, many say, continues to do so today.It is perhaps overdue to the African tradition for collective storytelling and music that Johnsons voice is so much more powerful and raw compared to other poets/songwriters talking about the same thing, for example Gil Scott-Heron. Perhaps it also has something to do with the way the poems are written and their apparent inaccessibility to the Western reader. What it succeeds in doing is creating, once read aloud, a authentic sense of Johnsons voice its rhythm and patterns, recreated in our own, individual voices. These are poems that cannot be read silently they make no sense just as words on a page. For them to be truly understood, these words, seemingly unfamiliar at first, become familiar once we voice them ourselves. In a way , Johnson is raising the whole concept of voice in poetry to another level voice is no longer something we get a sense of when reading words on a page it is something we must enunciate for ourselves. When it becomes collective poetry (Johnsons words through everybody elses voice), it speaks for everyone, heedless of his or her colour. We cannot help but identify with the poet and his words because, essentially, they become our own.This sense of a collective poetry, of Johnson speaking for everyone, comes across strongly in all of his poems, and BG (his tribute to Bernie Grant, the first black Member of Parliament) is no exclusion to this ruleyu woz wi cheefyu woz wi choiceyu woz wi champianyu woz wi faceyu woz wi voice 20yu woz wi main man(16-21)But if Linton Kwesi Johnson is using voice in his poetry to acquire a political end, then Tom Leonard is using his voice to represent a social one. Like Johnson, Leonard writes in the strong dialect he speaks, hailing from Glasgow. Like Johnson and Plath, his poems are infused with his own voice, and, by writing in his colloquial way, forces the reader to read the words aloud, or imagine how they would sound spoken. Thus, what seems to be an incomprehensible passage can be understood when read aloud in a long Scottish accentifyi stullhuvnywurkt oot 35thi diff-rince tweenyir eyesnyir ears 40 geez peace,pal(From Unrelated Incidents 33-42)Not only does Leonards voice come through very strongly here, the form of this particular poem (Unrelated Incidents) adds to the boilersuit effect Leonard is trying to achieve namely by breaking up the flow of the writing, the reader is squeeze to ponder over and analyse individual words and phrases at a time. It seems also that Leonard is concerned with the subjectiveness of language, and the way different words and different intonations mean different things to different people. It has been said that language is a slippery medium, and this is all too true in the cultural divide between England and Scotland. Although on paper both countries speak the same language, in reality, the different ways in which English is used by both the Scots and English themselves, suggests that this is not the case. Leonard points out the root of these differences in Unrelated Incidents, in an recite called The 6 Oclock Newsthirza ripeway ti spellana right way 90to tok it. Thisis me tokn yirright way aspellin. thisis ma trooth. 95(The 6 Oclock News 88-95)Leonard seems to be highlighting here the deviation between tokking (or talking) and spelling. There may be a right way of spelling, says Leonard, but there is no right way of talking (not in these days when received pronunciation is an institution which is frowned upon and laughed at, anyway). Your right way of talking is not my right way of talking. Similarly, Leonard says, your right way of spelling is no longer my right way of spelling. this/is ma trooth (94-95). We see this most clearly in his poem In the Beginning was the Word, in which spelling and language is slowly corrupted and deconstructed, leaving in its place something new and startlingly clear. in the ascendent was the word .in thi beginning was thi wurdin thi beginnin was thi wurdin thi biginnin was thi wurdin thi biginnin wuz thi wurd 5n thi biginnin wuz thi wurdnthi biginnin wuzthi wurdnthibiginin wuzthiwurdnthibiginninwuzthiwurd. in the beginning was the sound . 10We can see, then, that these poets are all linked in the way they use their voice Sylvia Plath uses hers to instil her poems with a sense of her own personality and intimacy Linton Kwesi Johnson uses his to use our voice, in effect, in order to put a political point across and Tom Leonard uses his to illustrate the subjective nature of language, and how we use it to achieve our own ends. In this way, we can see how these poets have all used their voice in different ways all to create the effect that it is their poetry and no-one elses. These poets are distinct in their o riginal and compelling use of their own individual voices.Earlier in this essay, I mentioned Roland Barthes piece, The Death of the Author, and it seems appropriate here, now that I have highlighted the ways in which these poets operate concerning voice, to analyse his essay in this context. Barthes holds that an author or poet cannot be individual or original because he or she is merely a product of the society that surrounds them. This throws the whole concept of the author function into question is an author really an author? Have they really written what they have written?I believe that the use of voice in poetry proves that a poet or an author can be individual and original. It is true that a poet like Tom Leonard or Linton Kwesi Johnson writes in the dialect of his society, and is therefore (to an extent) a product of that society, but this does not address the fact that these poets are entities in themselves, bringing something original to their work, and they are not simply blank sheets which society has filled in. In short, these poets do not mold their society they regurgitate themselves. Every poet brings something new and original to the world of poetry and literature, and if this were not the case, then poetry and literature would never have advanced at all.Wordsworth said that a poet is someone who is pleased with his own passions and volitions, and who rejoices more than other men in the spirit of life that is in him delighting to contemplate similar volitions and passions as manifested in the goings-on of the Universe, and habitually impelled to create them where he does not find them, (Preface to Lyrical Ballads, 1798) and to this I would only add that today, a great poet should have a strong voice. The voice of a poet is his true identity that which he is judged against, and that which compares him to all others. Ultimately, a poets voice is his defining feature an existential monument to who he is something entirely unique, and something that should be cherished.