Wednesday 29 April 2015

Language


Linguistically speaking, this is an exceedingly rich and involving poem. Duffy utilises fairly simple terms; indeed, “contemplating”, the longest word to appear, is the only one that exceeds three syllables. Nonetheless she succeeds in wringing fresh meaning out of all manner of fairly well-used poetic language, partially by leaning on the reader’s familiarity with the traditional tropes of love poetry whilst simultaneously relying upon certain key ambiguities - first and foremost that surrounding the eponymous pearls. So doing, she creates a complex and intricate structure of symbolic self-expression.

The main conceit of the poem, that of an hierarchical relationship between two women defined in terms of service, seems gradually and gracefully to dissolve, only to slyly re-assert itself. The word “mistress”, whose double meaning has been exploited for poetic effect since at least Shakespeare’s day, presents itself at first as light, nearly humorous, especially considering that it has long been a cliché. However, its connotations of superiority never quite fade away. Indeed, I would suggest that the central tension of the poem lies in a lingering sense of inequality between the speaker and the subject.

The “pearls”, referred to alternately as “jewels” and “milky stones”, can be taken to represent status, both societal and interpersonal. The interchangeability of the terms used reflects a striking sense of fluidity of identity between the two characters. This, however, is marked as impermanent by the end of the poem: it is the felt “absence” of the pearls which, perhaps standing for the absence of their owner but nonetheless carrying a subtly different set of connotations to mere love-loneliness, which leaves the speaker inflamed and the tension unresolved in the poem’s parting words. The phrase “milky stones” robs the pearls of a great deal of their romantic mystique by rendering them in Anglo-Saxon whilst simultaneously alluding to breasts and the obvious connection between self-adornment and sexuality. A similar double-meaning could be read into the parted red lips of stanza four.

What’s more, that these lips only seem to “want to speak” (“as though…”) could suggest a reluctance on the part of the poet to make her meanings and allusions entirely clear. The symbols appear to want to tell us what they actually mean, but perhaps they don’t. Ambiguity, after all, would appear to be the only constant factor in this poem, which seems more than fair enough considering just how ambiguous love and desire tend to be.

The servant-mistress motif also remains throughout the poem, however it never really stands up. We are invited to consider the servant picturing her mistress returning to her own, presumably superior, room while she herself lies somewhere far removed, whereas she simultaneously reveals herself to know intimate details concerning the manner in which the beloved goes to bed “as she always does”. This being the case, the separation between the two begins to reveal itself as more illusory and conceitful than the pearls themselves.

S.L. Davidson

No comments:

Post a Comment