|
A good title gets right to the root of a poem |
This is a quirky essay I wrote about poetry titles, and which first appeared in James Midgley's excellent journal
Mimesis in either late 2008 or 2009. I republished it here in 2011, and thought it might be nice to spin it out again.
My grateful thanks go to James for publishing it in
Mimesis, a magazine which sadly doesn't appear to be active anymore.
What's In A Title?
A
title is a title is a title. Right? It’s a simple framing device, a
doorway into the world of the poem. The title of a poem is the ‘in’ just
as the last line is the ‘out’. It’s about yin and yang. What else is
there to say on the subject?
Perhaps
you’ve read the occasional theory on this, thought about it in passing,
frowned over an inapposite choice, made the right one unerringly
yourself - or made the wrong one and been unable to do a thing about it.
All of which suggests that it’s not so simple. That maybe a title is
rather more than a doorway and a framing device, that maybe there’s
something compulsive and instinctual about the selection of a title,
something deeply linked to the poem’s psyche.
In
exploring this question further, I don’t intend to look at the titles
of collections in this context, because those serve a different overall
purpose than the simple poem title. Instead, to kick off the discussion,
here are some of the words, phrases and images that occurred to me when
playing around with the basic question, ‘How to define the title of a
poem?’
Amongst other things, the title of a poem is a
handle; a moniker; an entrance; an epiphany; an overview; a hinge; a
first glimpse of the narrator; an illustration; a cover blurb; a
foreword; a container; a puzzle; a mnemonic; a dreamscape; a
proto-metaphor; a clue; a red herring; an impression; a surname; a
signpost; a subtext; a précis; a brochure; a ritual; a contract; an
escape clause; a souvenir; a programme; a translation; a polyglot; a
market stall; an all-you-can-eat buffet; a description; a label; a
magician’s hat; the secret name of the muse; an asylum; a safe house: a
double entendre; an invocation; a spell; a charm; a warning; a skeleton
key; a portmanteau; a joke; a mystery; a gesture; a flashlight; a
tablecloth; a plot; a deception; a cast list; a question; an answer; a
command; a suggestion; a conundrum; a kiss; a sword; a formula; a
surprise.
|
When in doubt, go for the big gesture ...
|
Let’s unpack some of those, and
bring in examples to help with that process. I’m going to choose most of
these examples at random, by scanning down the contents lists of
collections near my desk in search of titles which might illustrate some
of the phrases above, but a few of these titles were already in my mind
when I sat down to write this short essay.
1. Ted Hughes: Examination at the Womb-door
2. Tobias Hill: A Bowl of Green Fruit
3. Jacob Polley: Votive
4. Joanne Limburg: The Fall
5. Alice Oswald: Dunt
6. Ezra Pound: In a Station of the Metro
7. Don Paterson: The Forest of the Suicides
8. Jane Griffiths: Travelling Light
9. Catherine Smith: The World is Ending Pass the Vodka
10. Sylvia Plath: Lady Lazarus
11. David Morley: To Feed the Dead Who Would Come Disguised as Birds
12. U.A. Fanthorpe: Not My Best Side
13. Moniza Alvi: I Would Like To Be a Dot in a Painting by Miro
14. Geoffrey Hill: Ovid in the Third Reich
15. Stevie Smith: Not Waving but Drowning
16. Katy Evans-Bush: The Life Mask
17. Vicki Feaver: The Gun
18. Elizabeth Bishop: At the Fishhouses
This
first title, Ted Hughes’ ‘Examination at the Womb-door’, may be comic
(who gets quizzed whilst being born, after all?) but in the context of
the poem is actually quite a straightforward title. It comes early on in
his macabre 1970 sequence Crow and does more or less what it says on the tin, though with the usual Hughes twist: ‘Who owns these scrawny little feet? Death./Who owns this bristly scorched-looking face? Death.’
So this title comes under the following headings: first glimpse of the
narrator; a joke; a gesture; a ritual; a (literal, here) entrance; a
cast list; a conundrum. Entertaining, yes, and ironic too, but not
particularly layered with mystery and potential. Indeed, Hughes rarely
does the heavily-laden poem title. He tends to present a bare-looking
stall; you only see the rich and strange when you stop to ‘examine’ it.
Joanne
Limburg’s ‘The Fall’ looks far more promising. So little is given for
us to work on, yet paradoxically so much; immediately we need to ask
questions, begin to whittle down the possibilities. Is this poem about
the past or future? Is it about one person? (An incompetent mountaineer,
for instance.) Or is it a biblical reference, encompassing all of
humankind? Or perhaps it’s the American term for autumn and we should
expect something Keatsian here from Limburg. With ‘The Fall’, we can’t
choose between options until we start reading, so this title must be,
variously, a subtext; a magician’s hat; a double entendre; a mystery; a
tablecloth; a question.
|
‘Not Waving but Drowning’ is an all-you-can-eat buffet; a précis; a portmanteau; a label; a mnemonic; a joke; an illustration. |
So
now categories of poem are beginning to emerge from the earlier list of
possibilities. Some titles are straightforward; they describe the
contents of the poem in an - apparently - unmetaphorical manner. Others
provide a more oblique approach; they suggest rather than describe,
leaving interpretation up to the reader.
In
the first category, we could at first glance put Elizabeth Bishop’s ‘At
the Fishhouses’, Catherine Smith’s ‘The World is Ending Pass the Vodka’
and Tobias Hill’s ‘A Bowl of Green Fruit’.
But
no, you start reading, and even Hill’s innocent-sounding title, so
reminiscent of a still life painting, proves deceptive: new love turns
out to be like unripe fruit, and lovers must wait patiently for it to
mature, for ‘kisses//sweetening in our mouths,/ the hearts
softening,/the riddles undoing themselves.’ By golly, it was a metaphor!
How
about Oswald’s ‘Dunt’, then? The name of a river - like her long poem
‘Dart’ - this one has got to be straightforward description. And so it
could be. Except that it’s such a short, hard name, Dunt. Reminds me of
‘dunce’ or ‘don’t’ or ‘shunt’ or ... other similar words. And somehow
the poem itself can’t get started, anymore than the river can get
flowing. It stutters. It repeats itself. It bangs up against the
intractable, like a ram obstinately headbutting a fence pole. ‘Try
again,’ it orders us (or the river, or the poet). Like a poor page
upload or an engaged telephone line. ‘Try again.’
So
even what seems like a straightforward name-as-title - here, ‘Dunt’ -
may actually be working hand-in-hand with the poem that follows it as a
proto-metaphor, its impact based on sound and repetition; a subtext; a
charm; a ritual; the secret name of the muse; a cast list; a command.
|
The best titles resist a second, third, fourth glance ...
|
The
second category, that of the slippery or suggestive oblique, is easier
to fill. Poetry abounds with such titles, being a medium perfectly
adapted to the metaphorical. Here we might put Jacob Polley’s ‘Votive’,
Jane Griffiths’ potentially straightforward ‘Travelling Light’
(reminiscent perhaps of Don Paterson’s pun-based ‘Landing Light’) and
‘Not My Best Side’ by U.A. Fanthorpe. We could hazard a guess at what’s
going on here, judging by these titles, but even our best guesses would
lack substance. Because of their slippery nature, it’s impossible to get
a proper grasp on the poem from such titles; first the poem has to be
read, and understood, and then the title can be returned to, for
re-evaluation, to add an extra dimension to the reading experience.
Some
extremely oblique titles, however, are rather good at conjuring up the
world of the poem without presenting the poem itself. Try Stevie Smith’s
‘Not Waving but Drowning’. The poem is hilarious and poignant and
hugely memorable. Yet you could actually imagine all of it simply by
concentrating on the title alone; the title is so brilliantly
comprehensive, the poem itself is almost superfluous to requirements. So
‘Not Waving but Drowning’ is an all-you-can-eat buffet; a précis; a
portmanteau; a label; a mnemonic; a joke; an illustration.
There
is a third category though, which seems to straddle the other two: the
semi-metaphor or false-friend. This is the deceptive title, the one
which appears to be leading you in one direction, and indeed may do so
to a certain extent, but then suddenly you find yourself in an
unexpected place, without the guidebook or companions you were
expecting. Titles from the list above which might fall into this
category include Sylvia Plath’s ‘Lady Lazarus’ and Ezra Pound’s ‘In a
Station of the Metro’. You could even slip Vicki Feaver’s ‘The Gun’ in
there too.
|
Eh?
|
In Plath’s poem, her shining energies and serial poetic violences wipe away the comfortable Biblical reference to Lazarus redivivus,
leaving the reader disturbed and off-balance. Ezra Pound’s apparently
straightforward ‘In a Station of the Metro’ would seem to promise a
realistic, peopled, urban poem - and indeed gives us one, but packed
into very few words; an impressionistic snapshot of modern life, taken
with a soft focus lens.
And
Feaver’s simple ‘The Gun’ might suggest something politically correct,
or perhaps tragic, the accident or act of violence that ruined someone’s
life; instead, the poem seems almost to revere the power of the gun
itself, and its ability to change our lives with the mere fact of its
presence. Is Feaver playing devil’s advocate here? The title gives us no
clues; only reading the poem line-by-line may bring us to a deeper
understanding of its purpose. Such a title, highlighting some elements
whilst missing vital others, apparently friendly but designed to trip us
up or lead us astray, is a magician’s hat; an asylum; a red herring; a
warning; a gesture; a flashlight; a deception; an escape clause; a
sword; a surprise.
What
difference does the category of a title make to us as readers? The ‘in’
of a title can be a critical aid when the poem itself is fairly opaque -
a clue, thank god! - or a delightful provocation when the poem seems at
first glance suspiciously simple. It is also a way for the poet to make
first contact with the reader.
For
instance, on reading a playful or ironic, tongue-in-cheek title like
Geoffrey Hill’s ‘Ovid in the Third Reich’ or Moniza Alvi’s ‘I Would Like
To Be a Dot in a Painting by Miro’, you know instantly that you are to
be entertained as well as sung to. That this is not merely a joke, but
the title as first glimpse of the narrator; a signpost; a brochure; a
market stall; a safe house; an answer; a kiss.
|
Katy Evans-Bush gives us ‘The Life Mask’ and we think, yes! before even turning to it, the metaphor is so powerful. |
The title, then, is a
pact with the reader (though some pacts - as we have seen above - are
based on a relationship of deception, often by prior arrangement if the
poet is well-known for such trickery). But the metaphorical is more
satisfying, on the whole, than the straightforward and the downright
deceptive. After all, if we wanted to read something simple and
self-explanatory, we would hardly be turning to poetry for that
experience.
And as poets, of
course, a substantial number of us like to butter our own egos with the
more slippery title, with references that demonstrate our wide reading
and metaphors that challenge the reader to play catch-up.
For where there’s no mystery, there’s no allure. Right?
So
we might see ‘The Forest of the Suicides’ on a contents list and
wonder, is Don Paterson about to entertain us, depress us, frighten us,
or leave us none the wiser? Here, the title tantalises and suggests. It
paints half a picture: the poem completes it. Katy Evans-Bush gives us
‘The Life Mask’ and we think, yes! before even turning to it, the metaphor is so powerful.
And
what of David Morley’s eloquent but mysterious ‘To Feed the Dead Who
Would Come Disguised as Birds’? Here we find the poem as epiphany; a
puzzle; a dreamscape; a polyglot; a spell; a cast list; a conundrum.
|
The best titles are linked symbiotically to the poem which they open ...
|
But the title remains
a viable entrance to the poem throughout its various, deceptive changes
of appearance and purpose. The best titles are linked symbiotically to
the poem which they open; with these, poem and handle exist side-by-side
with complete naturalness and no amount of imagining could bring a
reader, once familiar with that poem, to think of it with an alternate
title.
When everything is
working in harmony, the title as doorway to the poem is greater than
itself; in other words, like Doctor Who’s T.A.R.D.I.S., the good title
is bigger on the inside than the outside. (It may even travel in time.)
So always stop and examine it. To neglect the potential significance of a
title, to read it in haste or forget to glance at it on your way in, is
to enter the poem not only without knocking, but without any idea of
what you may find there.
And with good poetry, that might just prove dangerous.