Abstract

Insofar as lyric has been conceptualized as the subjective genre of poetry—invested in inner processes and states of feeling and thought in distinction to epic’s investment in external action—critical interest has revolved around the lyric I and especially questions of apostrophe and address. The implications of this investment range from Marxist critiques of lyric and bourgeois individuality to theoretical debates about the relation between the historical and lyric subject. What would it mean, however, to consider the presence of a lyric it? In this essay I consider how it can disclose a diverse set of lyric conventions—conventions that begin at the intersection of grammar and rhetoric but come to bear on larger philosophical and literary questions. Rather than defining it, poets often withhold its meaning, mining the hyperflexibility of the pronoun, its ability to be referential or dummy, context-dependent or not. Poets do this to make affective claims on their reader. At the same time, it can track a process in which lyric speakers attempt to get outside themselves to grasp their own subjectivity.