I was reading Jane Kenyon's poem about happiness, and the second time through, I noticed that the first half of the poem is written in the 2nd person voice. Then, the second half of the poem switches to the 3rd person voice.
I feel like the use of different voices lends different tones to the poem. In the first half (and when I say "first half," I mean the first two stanzas of the poem, the "second half" being the rest of the poem), when Jane uses the second person, the poem has a sort of informal tone about it. In the second half, Jane's use of the third person gives the poem a more formal sense.
In the first two stanzas, Jane describes happiness. She personifies it, and comes up with elaborate metaphors to explain what happiness is. Her choice of 2nd person and metaphors makes happiness seem like something close to all of us, like a person who we all know, but don't see as often as we'd like to (e.g. "prodigal who comes back to the dust at your feet," or the "uncle you never knew about"). In this half of the poem, the tone feels informal and commonplace.
In the second half of the poem, the voice changes to the third person, and the tone becomes more serious. Jane talks about the duties of happiness, and mentions those who happiness visits. One of the main reasons for the serious tone of the second half of the poem is the sudden switch from second person to third.
At least, that's what I was thinking.
Aaron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting comment, Aaron (is this a pen name?). I think we touched on this shift today when we discussed the way the poem moves from describing a Happiness that is both universal (prodigal) and unique to YOU to a Happiness that is actually indiscriminate, even to an abstract degree. YOu are right that the shift is also represented in the shift of narrative mode, from the first/second person to the third person (third person objective, technically). Nice observation!
ReplyDeleteNice post Aaron.
ReplyDeleteAlong with what you were saying I thought that the change in voice also served to comment on the main ideas of the poem itself. The 1st part in 2nd person feels very personal as it is directed at the reader. It makes you feel that happiness is a very special thing that you alone are capable of receiving, that it is something that comes when you are at your lowest point. When the perspective switches to 3rd person and the examples given change, it becomes clear that happiness is actually something that can come to anyone at any time. It has no path or specific drive that is aimed for you when you are at your worst.
Kenyon starts her poem seeming to believe in this drive of happiness, that happiness seeks out those in despair. By the end of the poem she has refuted that and happiness is now a free-moving existence, visiting whoever and whatever on random occurrence.
The various examples given in the fourth stanza described the everyday people who happiness affects. Of these, I felt the example of “the child whose mother has passed out from drink” did not seem to fit. This example gave a clearly deserving person whereas the others were not necessarily unhappy people. The monk in his cell for example could be living a very fulfilling life. The child gives a very sad image of a deserving individual which seemed to fit more with the ideas in the first three stanzas regarding happiness coming to a very depressed individual.
I don't know if anyone thought this, but the last few lines of the poem describing the "wineglass, weary of holding wine" struck me as startlingly morbid. The only way a wine glass would be unable to hold wine is if it falls and breaks, which would techinically be the "death" of the wineglass. Perhaps the poet is also trying to say that some people are happy when they die, for perhaps that is their freedom from sickness and struggle?
ReplyDelete