Compare the ways in which Carol Ann Duffy and Elizabeth Jennings present intimate personal relationships under strain in the poems Close and Family Affairs

Both poems make use of structural devices but to disparate effects. Enjambement runs throughout Close, which in my opinion creates a sense of the poet's confusion; lines frequently end in the middle, then continue on to the next line in a disjointed manner. Some may interpret this enjambement as representing the rush of feelings in the relationship or as supplementary to the unstable, perturbed atmosphere. I feel it is representative of the poet's confused thoughts. This device is also employed in Jennings's poem, reflecting disconnection in the relationship through structure ("Unconnected by / The blood we share?"). Foregrounding is another device shared between the poems. Duffy uses foregrounding to place focus on a specific thought, "can I win", drawing emphasis on a sense of hopelessness; short sentences also add to the hopeless aura of her indecisive state. Likewise, in Family Affairs, foregrouding occurs ("Out of Pure wrath.") to draw emphasis on the extent of the anger between the two women. The capitalization of the lexeme "Pure" stresses the undiluted and powerful nature of this anger.

The setting of Close is a bedroom. This, or so I feel, shows the personal essence of the relationship, and the privateness of the liaison; the "two childhoods" could be a metaphor for the past selves of the lovers, and their presence in the bedroom exemplifies the invasiveness of the past, which has intruded into this very personal space. Family Affairs does not have a setting, which is unusual. Perhaps this is because the poem deals with emotion and abstraction, predominantly, as shown through the highly figurative language. The distance in the poem certainly seems more emotional than physical. Despite this both poems contain a first person narrative, which makes the reader feel involved in the revelation of the poet's thoughts. Duffy uses the personal pronoun "you" to directly address her lover, which coupled with the present tense, engenders a feel of immediacy, as though the reader is a first-hand witness. Similarly, Jenning's uses the personal pronoun "we" to directly address her family member, which has a very inclusive effect, fortifying the mentioned bond; yet unlike Duffy, Jennings's narrative is much calmer and organised, which I believe may tell us that the separation is far from recent, for she has had time to contemplate it and organise her own feelings. Both narratives are effective in depicting the strain in the relationships.

Close, like Family Affairs, contains a powerful bond, though it is something very sexual and dominated by one partner. "Signed by your tongue" is the most patently sexual line in the poem, and it sets the tone of the relationship. Moreover, the use of the lexeme "signed" implies ownership - a bond - almost certain to result in strain due to the unequal balance of power. While the poem is very sexualised, Duffy persists "Love won't give in." As has been discussed, the bond in Family Affairs is familial, though whether it is between a mother and daughter or between sisters is ambiguous. Femaleness definitely pervades the poem. The past, too, has purport to both pieces: in Family Affairs it is because of past action, or more accurately 'inaction', that the relationship has reached a stage of apathy. In Close the past is seen as something inescapable ("The ghosts of ourselves behind and before us, throng in a mirror") which has not only shaped the current situation, but will continue to shape everything - ever-present in her personal life as the childhood in the bedroom.

The inability to be open, domination and the past are all contributing factors to strain in Close; Family Affairs uses the notion of distance to show how strained the intimate family bond has become, like an elastic band that has been stretched to its limits. The two poems convey these feelings exceptionally well.