What’s the most overused word in literature? Is it “Love,” that ubiquitously versatile idol of poetic lore? Is it “Death” – be not proud; O, where is thy sting? Maybe it is “Moon,” that “harsh mistress,” the great harbinger of our marvelous idol, bringer and taker of the tides? Perhaps she is so overused because she endears us with many a scented “Night,” giving us unearned confidence to kill literary passion with cliche after poor old cliche. Or would you believe me if I told you the most overused word in literature, and particularly in poetry, is the simple little one-letter word “I.” Yes, I believe it is.
“I,” the one word that can send flocks of admirers to the nearest cliff, the simple little icon of self-importance, the one word that is so overused it makes verbs shutter with fear and indifference.
Novice poets seem to think that “I” is the savior of literature; in reality, it is its curse. One will often hear young poets claim, “But that is the way it happened,” as if the truth of an event is more important than the Truth behind the truth. Facts so often get in the way of literary truth telling and “I” is the biggest perpetrator of all. It is time to send that unholy demon of self to his drastic fate. The next time you are tempted to toss “I” into the ring of your poem, consider approaching your subject from another perspective. Give “I” a kick off the cliff and create a useful fiction instead. Rarely will “I” make a good poem better and even less should we expect it to save a bad one.
Related posts:
i’ve heard this said before, not in these words. i – i – i am guilty – guilty – guilty. and i know it’s not always the right thing to do BUT … BUT … i do incorporate fiction, bend reality. the “i” isn’t always me and and it’s not always how it happened. that’s the only thing i could say in caution to your remarks as a flat rule: that we can’t always assume that the “i”, the narrator, is the same as the poet.
i’m carrying away from this a challenge to write more pieces without “i.” i don’t always use it but i usually do and it would be smart to pay attention to it. thanks!
You bring up an interesting point Carolee. The fictional “I.” It is a useful technique to employ, I agree. But like anything else, it can be overdone. What we don’t want to do is use our poetic strengths as crutches. We should ever be learning new devices and honing our skills.
This is probably why most biographies I’ve read have never been that interesting. Facts are inflexible. All you can do with them is present them in as best as light as possible. A first person perspective is one thing but trying to be faithful to the truth is foolhardy as you suggest.
That said, I think there’s no harm in deciding on a few benchmarks to ground your characters. In the book I’m writing at the moment both the daughter and the father are based on me, me-the-son in my relationship with my own father and me-the-father in my relationship with my own daughter; there is also a doppelgänger-character who is a complete fabrication.
The things that happen in the book are total fiction but tying my hands in this way is necessary because I’m working in a crucible. Basically what we have here is a character study: an idealised self compared to a variation of that self contrasted with the complete opposite of that self. It is also why I’m finding it so hard to write even though it’s nothing close to biography.
Sounds like an interesting story, Jim. I’m curious. Do you write character profiles of your fictional characters? Like a composite, so you can keep track of the facts about them as you write your stories?