Reading Jack Underwood’s Happiness through the medium of eggs
1:
“The streets look like they want to be frying
eggs
on themselves.” (from ‘Love Poem’)
‘Love
Poem’ is an archetypal ‘Jack Underwood’ poem.
(Can we say that about a poet with only one full collection under his
belt, albeit an excellent and almost bilious-attack inducingly self-assured one? Sure, why the hell not?) It creates a persona – which we’ll call ‘Jack
Underwood’ for the sake of clarity, or ‘JU’ for short, to distinguish him from
the author Jack Underwood, or JU for short – that’s observant and fidgety and
self-reflexive, even perhaps to the point of neurosis. There’s a real sense here of the world seen
and experienced, of a life lived and observed with clarity. Perhaps too much clarity, all told, for
there’s a darkness underpinning ‘Love Poem’, or at the very least melancholy at
odds with the positive note struck by the title [1]. ‘JU’ as a character is, it seems, rather
fragile, even agoraphobic, whose every thought is a ‘housefly’ – for the
record, I’ve never come across a more precise image for the way whole days can
be frittered away amidst the nervous buzz and flicker of low level depression –
and whose days are ‘gnaw[ed]’ at as the speaker waits for the object of his
affections to return home. (The same
anxiety is writ large in ‘Inventory of Friends’, and a similar emotional
register recurs in a minor key throughout the collection.) It is a portrait of love, then, as absence:
something radically needed by a consciousness preternaturally unsure of itself.
2:
“All this fear, like a fizz building in a
bad, grey egg, is waiting for you.”
(from ‘Poem of Fear for My Future Child’)
Here
is another poem hesitating and finding its fullest expression in the fissure
between unspeakable love and insuperable anxiety. Here JU, through the mouthpiece of ‘JU’,
manages to express – refreshingly sans
schmaltz, which is what’s normally at the top of the menu when it comes to
poets writing about their goddamn children – the horror of dependence and
unconditional love. Put it this way: when
we have nothing or no-one to care for but ourselves, we can be pretty blithely
indifferent to the terrors that might be lurking out there in the world, except
at those (hopefully rare) points when said terrors come into sharper focus to
impact significantly upon our previously cosseted lives. Yet the moment we’re provided with another
life to care for, the ratio of terror to safety (or at least neutrality) in the
outer world is instantaneously reversed: we are at the mercy of the universe’s
nihilistic caprices in a way we had never before imagined, not because the
universe has suddenly become more nihilistically capricious (how could it, to
be honest?), but because we are suddenly expected to have some kind of
authority, however partial; some means of countering, however briefly, those
same nihilistic caprices, the anxieties no doubt induced by those expectations compounded
and amplified by our recognition of our ultimate failure in the face of those
expectations. That Underwood chooses to
write about these fears and anxieties in such darkly comic terms – “I am such a
dreadful future father; / I’m on the curb, crying, I’m a mess with your scarf” –
does nothing to undermine the economical skill with which he’s expressed one of
the most appalling paradoxes in the whole panoply of human affairs, namely this:
without love, we have no purpose; with love, we have no power.
PS: For anyone doubting the veracity of Underwood’s
startling image choice here, I can attest that ‘bad’ eggs are definitively ‘grey’. The only time I have encountered such a
specimen in over three decades of pretty uninterrupted egg-consumption was a
few years back. I had boiled an egg for
my breakfast and was looking forward to the ‘small happiness’ of cracking its
top, and sliding my spoon into the gently resistant egg-flesh, before prising
its lid clean off and prodding a buttery sliver of toast into the turmeric-coloured
honey of its just-undercooked yolk. But horribly,
impossibly, my spoon met no resistance whatsoever, and once the lid was
removed, what was revealed was a tiny witch’s cauldron of battleship-grey
tapioca that gave off a cornea-sizzling, sulphurous hum. Needless to say, I did not eat an egg after
that for some days.
Joachim Beuckelaer - 'Girl with a Basket of Eggs' |
‘I promise when I lift your egg’ (the poem entire)
We’re
back to love again with this poem, which Happiness
as a whole seems to be setting up as the opposite, or at least the sun-dappled,
socially well-adjusted twin, of anxiety.
The recurring imagery of the egg begins to make some kind of sense now;
it’s not simply an idiosyncrasy on Underwood’s part, but a schema, a component
of Underwood’s – gasp! – imaginative nexus.
In ‘Poem of Fear…’, the simile-egg’s gone bad due to a ‘fizz’ of fear, a
build-up of anxiety that’s somehow festered at its heart to render it rotten
and unpalatable. In this instance, the
egg – tied to love of instead of its antipode – is remade, packed with promise
and joy and poetry (see, for example, this analogy for the creative act: “when
you dunk / gorgeously in, softly exploding the yolk / like a new idea finding
one coloured term / for its articulation.”) Would it be too much to allow for the
possibility that Underwood might be drawing on a tradition of philosophical
enquiry that conceives of the egg as an analogue or diagrammatic illustration
of the human soul? Almost certainly, but
I’m going to do it anyway.
4:
“I am so big today I pushmy finger to the earth’s yolk and erupt it
like a boil.”
(from ‘Oversize’)
Another
exploding egg! Again, the egg is made to
do an astonishing degree of imagistic and philosophical heavy-lifting, here deployed
as a simile in Underwood’s imaginative casting of himself as a planet-smashing
giant, unleashing an annihilating runnel of lava on a whim, suggesting an
apocalyptic scenario to which not even a visionary genius of the calibre of a Michael
Bay or a Zack Snyder could do justice.
More seriously, though, it’s a perfect instance of a tendency that I think
Underwood’s mastered throughout Happiness:
namely the yo(l)king (ha!) together of the domestic and the cosmic, of the
palatable quotidian and the almost unimaginably infinite (‘Spring’’s image of “millions
of photons whoosh[ing] through my hands,” and ‘Some Gods’’s iteration of
small-scale, mundane (in the old sense) spirituality are two of the more overt
instances, but it’s a preoccupation that permeates many of the other poems). In fact, this feels like a good summation of
Underwood’s project throughout Happiness:
these poems, both singly and considered as a collective, read as attempts to
encompass an entire life, from the immediate reality of a beautifully rendered
domesticity (the cleaning, the cooking, the cricket [2]), to broader concerns
relating to love, grief, anxiety, and doubt.
That Underwood manages to do all of this while eschewing the lazily and
humourlessly epiphanous – “I was chopping some tomatoes and thought about my
place in the universe, yeah?” – is arguably his biggest achievement.
5:
“No clue as to how the garlic tasteis getting in the eggs…”
(from ‘Reading the Milk’)
I
have two theories here:
(1)
If the eggs are being laid by local chickens, either the speaker’s own or those
of a neighbour, it’s possible – given that chickens are absolute demons when it
comes to decimating edible greenery – that the birds in question have access to
a patch of ramsons, and are eating them in sufficient quantities to radically affect
the flavour of their ovulations.
(2)
Alternatively, if the eggs are being kept in the kitchen near garlic, they may
be acquiring the taste vicariously, as it were.
Eggs are particularly susceptible to absorbing strong neighbouring
flavours due to their semi-porous membranes, a fact I learned from an episode
of Great British Railway Journeys, in
which Michael Portillo, who increasingly resembles a kind of rail-bound riposte
to Quantum Leap’s Sam Beckett,
sampled the delights of ‘buttered eggs’ in a market stall in Cork.
===
[1]
Although when were love poems ever expressions of anything other than
anguish? I guess in that sense,
Underwood’s poem is part of a grand tradition that sucks in Sappho and
Shakespeare and Thomas Wyatt and Keats and all the others; what marks him out
is the bald way in which he foregrounds the form’s tradition of anguish at the
expense of anything else.
[2]
Cricket = oval = egg, maybe?
No comments:
Post a Comment