Yes. These threads should turn into "Who would win in a physical fight."
Yes. These threads should turn into "Who would win in a physical fight."
Baudelaire and Whitman would face each other while Tennyson is down faster than the light brigade, Rimbaud went out crying for Verlaine and Rilke is locked inside his room with a punch in the eyes saying that he will call Rodin for help. Whitman is show-off however, Baudelaire is really dirty, but may be drunk...
I voted for Whitman and Baudelaire, just because those are the two I prefer, though I haven't read Rilke extensively.
As to a physical fight, Baudelaire was a syphilitic dandy, and Rilke had health problems all his life, so I'm not sure how good they would be in a fight.
Whitman and Tennyson managed to live quite long, and seem to have been in shape, in their prime I'm sure they could have done well in a fight. Though, Whitman could likely be seduced by Rimbaud. I think the real fight would be between Tennyson and Rimbaud, then it would depend if this is the 80 year old poet-laureate Tennyson or not. Rimbaud also must have had some experience with bar brawls from hanging around with Verlaine.
Yes. These threads should turn into "Who would win in a physical fight."
Yes... and MortalTerror's beloved Hemingway would finally have the chance of coming out on top.:D
Haha, burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Morley Callaghan once kicked Hemingway's butt in a boxing match while Fitzgerald was keeping time. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That's a nice poll you've got. I see 170% of the vote is in.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The percentages refer to the percentage of voters who voted for that choice rather than the percentage of votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
For me it was Tennyson hands down. I love his work. I don't think there is anything of his I have read which I did not like. And he is one of my personal favorites for any time period.
He didn't exactly kick his butt, did he? He dropped him, but, according to Mailer, only after Fitzgerald let the round go too long.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I think Mailer would probably have Hemingway, at least in a street fight. Ezra Pound looked like he could take a punch, but apparently Hemingway had limited success in teaching him how to throw one.
Well if Mailer didn't win the fight, at least he could stab him in the back after, like he did to his wife.
I just spent an hour reading some Tennyson [outloud; isn't it always more fun to read poetry outloud, with perhaps different affectations...]. I found notes where I'd read him the last time about 5 years ago. I sure wish I had found the poem 'Locksley Hall' when my fiancee left me. That is one bitter recrimination of a young man; although it wasn't my favorite poem, and very uneven I still very much enjoyed it.
When I was a teenager, three themes led me to Baudelaire: eroticism, Satanism, and revolt. I also discovered the art of the alexandrine, of the sonnet, of the poem. It was new for me who was reading only novels by Verne, Dumas and Maupassant (if you have to learn French, these three authors are a good beginning), I didn’t understand everything, but the charm was born. Soon after, I read Rimbaud and became totally enamored of his works. At that time, I preferred him to Baudelaire whose I had read just a few texts. I was fascinated by his rich vocabulary, his verbal prowess, his innovative combinations of words, his iconoclastic way to treat the verse, by the fresh air that emanates from his poetry, by the desires and fantasies of a young man, by his lust of freedom, by his revolt and his outbursts, by his faith and his engagement in Art and Life. In four years, he revolutionized the French poetry, breaking old rules, remolding the poetic forms, creating new ways towards symbolism, inspiring many a poet of the 20th century. And this is Rimbaud who, in 1871, fourteen years after the first edition of Les Fleurs du Mal, declared Baudelaire was a true god, whom the poets have to celebrate. But this declaration didn’t lead me to go into Baudelaire’s works in greater depth. Actually, I wanted to discover other poets, such as Verlaine (of course), Heredia, Valéry, Mallarmé, the surrealists, the romantic poets… I was loving poetry. A few years later, at twenty, there was a lesson on Baudelaire at the university, and, this time, I read him a bit differently: I saw in his poems the desires and the fears, the ideals and the obsessions of the modern individual trapped in the city, where he meets poor old women, who were beautiful once upon a time, and drunk chaps who cry their despair in the wine; where he catches sight of a lady who arises an ephemeral happiness far from the madding crowd; where the caress in the hair excites the feeling of infinite and eternity, forgetting one moment the corrupted and depressing world. By many aspects, Baudelaire introduces the modernity in poetry. Formally speaking, his verse is rather classic. I admire to see so much art in so few words. You can spend many hours commenting a single poem, to the astonishment of the students who, at first sight, had not imagined that there could be so much substance and meaning in a text. As for any poet, I guess his complete mastery of the language sounds less great in translation. In French, it’s a delight to read him again and again, to learn these magnificent verses by heart. So, between Rimbaud and Baudelaire, this latter has gained my preference.
One of my favorite poems, “L’Ennemi”:
Quote:
Ma jeunesse ne fut qu'un ténébreux orage,
Traversé çà et là par de brillants soleils ;
Le tonnerre et la pluie ont fait un tel ravage,
Qu'il reste en mon jardin bien peu de fruits vermeils.
Voilà que j'ai touché l'automne des idées,
Et qu'il faut employer la pelle et les râteaux
Pour rassembler à neuf les terres inondées,
Où l'eau creuse des trous grands comme des tombeaux.
Et qui sait si les fleurs nouvelles que je rêve
Trouveront dans ce sol lavé comme une grève
Le mystique aliment qui ferait leur vigueur ?
— Ô douleur ! ô douleur ! Le Temps mange la vie,
Et l'obscur Ennemi qui nous ronge le cœur
Du sang que nous perdons croît et se fortifie !
I must go against popular opinions here, as I place Rimbaud above Baudelaire. Rimbaud's poetry is simply scintillating to the mind, it causes new colors to die and procreate in the world of old colors. Most importantly I find it survives far more re-readings than any of Baudelaire's poems ( I have read the entire fleurs du mal and a selection of his prose poems) I mean I have read Une Saison En Enfer a dozen times and each time there is more beauty and meaning, something which non of Baudelaire's poems do for me.
As for Tennyson and Rilke: Tennyson just does not float my boat, he is shadowed by the romantics, but because the romantics were simply far superior to him. His verse seem's to forced and artificial, and to be honest I gave up on Ulysses 1/3 of the way as I simply did not like it, as in it gave me nothing, not a stir of the heart or a sooth of the mind.
Rilke, I rather like. However I have only read some scatterings of his poems and have not read his novel The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge. SO in judging him I am disadvantaged, but from what I have read he is bellow Rimbaud in my humble opinion.
Lastly Whitman, whom for me is the true competition of Rimbaud in the poll. Whitman or Rimbaud ? To be honest I find the style of Song of Myself and its contents to be beautiful, and I agree with many who state him as THE american writer, not just poet, but writer. He captures the essence of the country and his images are simple yet beautiful. so in regards of a single work, none of Rimabud's works is better than Song Of Myself. However when looking at the entire oeuvre, Rimbaud just has so much more.
In terms of influence both Rimbaud and Whitman have a strong one. They both were the poets off which the Beat generation modeled themselves. Whitman had the greater influence upon the early modernists, however Rimbaud with his poetry virtually defined and entire movement: symbolism; which was the basis of modernism. Furthermore while Whitman's influence stay's in literature, Rimbaud's expands into much more. He influenced an huge number of musicians such as Bob Dylan. Not only that but as the romantics defined the image of the 19th century rebel youth( think Byron and Shelley) Rimbaud defined and created the image of the 20th century rebel youth, and this image continues to inspire a huge amount of music and art as well as literature.
Really, in the terms of Influence, Baudelaire and Whitman have a superior stair here. I think in terms of poetry there is no upper hand. All 5 when had their big go, they hit high. All 5 have stuff that can be easily forgotten (less Rimbaud, but he chickened out). But influence... Whitman is really the first great english poet out of the isles, he is the poet of South America (absent Verlaine being the second one, and the romantics who are not included too). You just have to imagine to whom he dialogues afterwards, Neruda, Pessoa, Borges, Drummond, Paz, Ruben Dario... Those are the best poets of south america plus Pessoa.
As Baudelaire, he is the rebel without a cause by nature. He tried so hard to bring dialogue with all french culture that he ends touching everything (not to mention the discussion about aesthetics, painting, photography and music). There would be no Rimbaud, Mallarme, Verlaine, Lautreamont without him; Poe could be lost; the frankfurt generation would not have a poet to talk about. Tennyson is quite good (I would say he does not seem inovative, rather polishing the romantic generation, but also he and barret had the disvantage of not using their style during a social change in the world) but he is really restrict to english world (more even the isle) and also... Soon would come Yeats and finish him. Yet, I think much of Yeats voice, the twilight notion would lose power if in between the romantics there is not Tennyson to uplift it and give the honorable melancholy. Rimbaud carries far, but really, he carries where Baudelaire or Verlaine go. Rilke is today more translated to portuguese than Goethe, much due to his letters, but he is far from understood or copied. He is more lost generation than the lost generation.