Skip to main content

Guest Review: Pugh on Haynes

by John Haynes

Haynes’ first collection, Letter to Patience, was a long poem in terza rima addressed to a friend in Nigeria. The present book is again a long poem, this time in rime royal, the stanza of Troilus and Criseyde, addressed to his Nigerian-born wife.

As in his first book, the classical form is given a more contemporary feel by being handled quite freely. Rhyme is anything from full to a vague approximation of vowels, while the metre, though basically iambic, is also often irregular and, above all, uses a lot more enjambement than Chaucer would have contemplated.  This is where one of the problems comes in. Rime royal seems less able to accommodate constant run-on lines than terza rima was; Haynes’ version of it may sound more contemporary, but it also often sounds awkward:

Not sure she’d woken up, he called out "Kakka"
very softly just in case, then when her
voice creaked from the dark

The first line there is perfectly sayable; the second, with its jarring run-on, stumbles horribly. This happens several times, and always in connection with rather daringly run-on lines. Where the poem flows, as it often does for long periods, the line breaks fall into the way of matching natural pauses in the syntax just as they would in Chaucer.  I'm driven to the conclusion that sometimes, the reason a thing has been done the same way for centuries is not that no one has thought to see if another way is better, but because it works.

The poem also seems to flow better when he's narrating facts than when he's pondering life, the universe and everything. At these points the syntax can get downright convoluted and not only the rhythm but the sense is hard to follow.  In this verse

And Lara born almost the day your mother
died, a second soul, the joy and sorrow
child across all this school map Sahara,

that third line, with its impenetrable three-noun phrase at the end, had me baffled and wondering if it were a typo; had a word been missed out? There certainly are several typos, including a couple where the word "its" has carelessly acquired an unwanted apostrophe – "that calls the tale to it's own exile" and "this Africa, it's use". He also sometimes baffles me with his use of italics: why, in this line, the italics on "are"

still dark as are the walls of that stone womb

let alone the last two letters of "sentimental" in these lines:

                                   or try to put
my case sentimental, holding your foot

where I can't imagine what is being achieved.

But mainly where there is puzzlement it comes from this being partly a very personal poem. It does have universal relevance; it is an often fascinating meditation on what we mean by the word "you", the concept of another human to whom we stand in a relationship, but it is also addressed to a "you", the poet's wife, and contains many personal references from which we are necessarily excluded. This is quite acceptable in a poem, certainly preferable to having everything carefully explained as to an idiot, and here we come to another problem, the copious footnotes. Where these relate to Nigerian language and custom, they are sometimes useful but we could often do without them; the gist would come over even if the word did not. This account of an old woman's death is for my money, quite affecting without being translated:

Roof-thatch, brushed clay floor, clay bed, a wrapper
over her. She spoke from where she lay.
"Few days, one week, you no go see me, shah."
She drank, then smiled. She wasn't scared. She'd see
them all again, parents, sisters. "Bature,
you are welcome. How are you? Sannu!"
I answered: "Na gode". It means "Thank you".

I'd happily have done without the intrusively explanatory last sentence, and without the footnotes explaining that "few days" means "in a few days' time", "shah" "I assure you", "Bature" "European" and "Sannu" "hello". It reminds me of nothing so much as when the BBC adds subtitles to some Indian or African speaker whose English was perfectly comprehensible in the first place.  Even worse, though, is when he footnotes something which, if it is to make its impact on a reader at all, must do so without being signalled, like a quotation or literary reference – eg the footnote to the line "because here is the sun where I was born", which goes "Desdemona's words – "I think the sun where he was born/Drew all such humours from him." Here, surely, one must trust the reader to make the connection. If they don't, too bad, but spelling it out can never match the frisson of noticing it in one's own reading. This is something that must be conveyed without being said outright. To some extent, I have the same reaction to the frequent references to other writers, theories, the Reith lectures etc; they make the material feel vaguely unassimilated and though the urge to credit one's sources is admirable in an academic paper, they work better in a poem when buried.

To stress again, there are long stretches where this poem does move well and convey what it means to while carrying the reader with it:

Dad, what's it like to die? And when you're dead
will you still hear me play the violin?
Will you be you? Or just the word instead
of you? No, I'll be you. I'll snuggle in
your memory like hide and seek again.

If he relaxed more and trusted the reader, it might all come over as easily as that. This is an ambitious and unusual endeavour, as his last book was; it is always something to see a poet thinking on a large scale, not forgetting the importance of lyric moments but managing to weave them into a wider narrative.  It is also liberating to see poems that are not Euro-centric but recognise a wider world.  It's not the concept but  the execution I have some quibbles with.

Sheenagh Pugh reviews regularly for Eyewear.  She is a leading British poet.

1 comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…