Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats

[Jassy Melson]

How many hours I've spent reading your crap.
It makes me ill to think about it.

Wordsworth, you and your forest grove.
I imagine you in your eightieth year,
poet laureate, tottering to your urban desk
to compose a day's work consisting
of a couple of lines about bees buzzing
in the country and how it transports you back
to life primeval in the sacred forest.
God, how you suck.
It makes one want to push your a s s down
on a patch of poison ivy.

And you, Byron, with your almighty
everlasting sea, your triumphant eternal
boring-a s s ocean. You are perhaps
the most tiresome of the four. You are
the last person in the world I would want
to spend an afternoon with—you old
frigging bugger—you were such a fraud.
I want to grab you by the scruff of the neck
and force your head into the Atlantic Ocean.
How do like your nature now, Mr. B?

And let me not forget Shelley,
supposedly the only person
who was ever able to relate
the skylark's speech and teach
the secrets of the sun. How it must gnaw
at your innards, how you must be
gnashing your teeth to know
that your wife was ten times
the writer you were
and more famous than you are.

And here comes little Keats
hobbling at the end of the line,
holding onto his lady
without mercy and his Grecian urn;
perhaps the most idiotic
of them all (you can see the lunacy
in the eyes of his portrait).
God, how your corpse stinks.
You make me want to take that urn
and stuff it over your oversized head.

I think of them now
and all I can do is laugh bittersweetly.
How could I have spent so many hours
reading such drivel?

My heart fills with compassion
when I think of the tens of thousands
of college freshmen
being forced to read those four.

Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats,
when I think of you
I want to puke.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Wow! This is saved from being a tirade of envy by the control you exercise over the lines...

Did you shudder in advance of posting this at the thought of those who might rise up in defense of the Fab 4?

[Jassy Melson]

Oh yes, I know there will be those who rise and attack me. But I think the tongue-in-cheekness of this shows that I am half in jest and half serious.

[Cunninglinguist]

All in all I really dont understand the point of complaining like this. This seems to be appealing to people who share the same prejudices that you do instead of those who aspire to be sensible. Also, it's hard to elucidate why exactly you're mad at them other than "I have spent so many hours reading such drivel." So you think that they're drivel. {edit} Or maybe I (and a multitude of others) am seeing something that's just not there - yet this piece doesnt clarify why that might be the case.

These comments were not made in anger; it's hard to be angry at something like this. But I dont think most of LitNet appreciates disingenuous poems such as this one.

P.S. I dont appreciate the edit, as what was originally written was not meant as a personal attack but a legitimate reason as to why he holds the sentiments that he does. I no where accused anyone of being dense unless the definition of 'maybe/perhaps' changed since the last time I checked.

[Delta40]

I think if you feel this way, then say so, which you have and good on you. I hope you feel better. Me, have never read any but I am in awe of mary shelley, daughter of mary wollstonecraft, feminist founder.

[Jassy Melson]

Ah, so now we come to the personal attack (I wondered when it was going to come). I am too dense to understand them, hey. When the personal attack comes, it's time for me to go

[JCamilo]

Hardly a personal attack (and considering your poem is a personal attack, you should not complain much), but if we replace Keats for Lettuce, Byron for Tomatoes, Shelley for Rice and Wordsworth for Fish, you can have a 5 years old kid that does not want to eat anything but candy.
Your poem is a rambling, if you are going to address to literature, you must show some critical vallue. It is possible to be ironic or even nasty, Goethe did it, Pope did it, etc but what you did is just to attack your own experience, not those poets. They are very bad for you, that is what you tell in the poem, since nobody in his right mind really thinks any of them is "drivel", so your poem fail because you turned it against yourself. Hence the impression you caused that they are too dense to you. It is what is written in the poem.

[Alexander III]

Im gonna be honest, because I like people to be honest with me, if we put aside the content of the poem and personal preferences there, the actual poem as a piece of art is rather bad. I have seen your others poems and I know you are capable of writing tolerable verse, this however is just bad.

And you cannot expect to be the victim if someone calls you dense after what you just said. Its like when the 15 year old boy says Hamlet is crap compared to The Davinci code, he is either immature, dense, or the last 500 years of the worlds brightest scholars have been mistaken and the boy is a genius for seeing the true light.

Ah and this may be my own limitation, but to me it reads plainly as being very plain and honest about what you think, if this is a satire, I must admit I don't get what you satirize ?

[dafydd manton]

What, may I ask does the verb "Suck" mean in this context? It isn't an expresssion used in British English, except with the meaning to suck, as in drinks through a straw. Similarly, the abbreviation a s s. Could somebody please tell me what it stands for?

My dear old sainted Mum always maintained that swearing was the last resort of those with a limited vocabulary or a limited imagination. I noticed a couple of descents in to vulgarity. An explanation would be most welcome, please. Thank you.

[Jassy Melson]

Thank you all for youir comments (and your opinions). The fact that you bothered to write a response to my poem (and my statement afterwards) shows me that the poem struck a chord with you. It peeved you off, didn't it. My objective exactly. Thank you for allowing me to achieve my objective.

[dafydd manton]

Possibly, I don't know yet, my questions don't seem to have been answered Was it Churchill who referred to "2 nations divided by a common language"?

[Delta40]

lol. if peeving people off is your objective, then you obviously have demonstrated a potential to develop well in this area!

[Alexander III]

You didn't peeve me of, bad art doesn't peeve me of, neither do a singles opinions.

But if your objective was peeving us of, then I shall say I am peeved of, so at least you managed to succeed in something with this post. Everyone deserves at least one victory.

[dafydd manton]

Oh well, one man's meat is another man's Mad Cow Disease!!

[Jassy Melson]

More will follow. I like to stir up things and peeve people off. It makes my day. And it is so humorous to observe and to listen to people who are angry.

[NikolaiI]

Don't you know laughter is the best medicine.. Anger is kind of the opposite of that.

[Delta40]

More will follow. I like to stir up things and peeve people off. It makes my day. And it is so humorous to observe and to listen to people who are angry.

It's ok. I understand your need to illicit such a response from strangers-because you lack the ability to address your own anger and/or face the people who have 'peeved' you. I'm having a day just like that actually. so thank you for letting me give you a smile :-)

[Lokasenna]

If your purpose is to be inflammatory, then you have to have a position to defend yourself from. I agree with the other comments: your poem is a diatribe, with no basis in actual criticism. Some of the greatest masterpieces in world poetry notwithstanding, it is true that some of these men, on occassion, wrote some utter tosh. It is sometimes hard to reconcile the fact that the mind that produced Tintern Abbey and Intimations of Immortality also produced the abominable Simon Lee.

There is plenty to attack among their works, and it could be done with great wit and skill - unfortunately, I don't think your poem comes close. This is not to say that you are 'dense' - I don't think that for one minute, as you have at least tackled your opinions through the medium of poetry, and that is no small thing - but your poem is, in itself, 'drivel' and, dare I say it, 'a s s'. What you pose, then, is essentially a popularity contest between yourself and the masters of Romantic poetry - it is a contest you are going to lose.

[JCamilo]

If the purpose was to stir things up, you also failled. Like I said about the kid who refuse to eat, he can do a lot of mess to stir his mommy up too. And what?
People do not need to be "stirred up" to post here, it is their purpose. Except for lurkers, all of us only need a small excuse to post. If you had just wrote 'I hate them' you would get people posting too.
Just think how much Byron himself was a master of doing exactly what you want, inflame people.

[dafydd manton]

Obviously, since the OP is hiding behind an avatar, like the rest of us, I know nothing about the background, but somehow the writing reminds me of a rather low-grade hack journalist on some awful local newspaper. I wish I knew why.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Thank you all for youir comments (and your opinions). The fact that you bothered to write a response to my poem (and my statement afterwards) shows me that the poem struck a chord with you. It peeved you off, didn't it. My objective exactly. Thank you for allowing me to achieve my objective.

If someone were to kick me in the shin, that would definitely strike a chord with me. And if he subsequently thanked me for my expression of pain, confirming that he had achieved his objective, I'd have a pretty good idea what sort of mental condition I was faced with.

[Jassy Melson]

The replies to my experiment have proven to be very interesting. They have ranged from the lukewarm to the comical to the deadly serious to that of anger. I am somewhat surprised that such an obviously tongue-in-cheek poem elicted some replies filled with anger, even rage. One is tempted to say "lighten up, it's only a poem."

It may surprise the ones who replied to my experiment that my opinion of Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats is almost the exact opposite of what I expressed in the poem. I know I will be called insincere, a pretender, and a hypocrit for conducting the experiment I have, but it has proven to be a most rewarding experience for me. To write a poem that expresses something that is the exact opposite of what I feel is quite a useful and interesting experiment, and I recommend it to all poets.

[Delta40]

if nothing else Jassy, you have given me a good laugh and that is always a great way to start my day!

[NikolaiI]

The replies to my experiment have proven to be very interesting. They have ranged from the lukewarm to the comical to the deadly serious to that of anger. I am somewhat surprised that such an obviously tongue-in-cheek poem elicted some replies filled with anger, even rage. One is tempted to say "lighten up, it's only a poem."

It may surprise the ones who replied to my experiment that my opinion of Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats is almost the exact opposite of what I expressed in the poem. I know I will be called insincere, a pretender, and a hypocrit for conducting the experiment I have, but it has proven to be a most rewarding experience for me. To write a poem that expresses something that is the exact opposite of what I feel is quite a useful and interesting experiment, and I recommend it to all poets.

1) er. rage? I would say you are seriously projecting.

2) think about how that would go over in ANY real life situation. Seriously. Think.

[dafydd manton]

"Obviously" tongue-in-cheek? I don't wish to pry in to your private life, but whose cheek have you got your tongue in? (I trust that you are relatively well acquainted)

[Delta40]

his bum cheek perhaps??

[dafydd manton]

Ah, of course. You are wise beyond your years!

[Delta40]

lol. only beyond my ears Dafydd!

[Alexander III]

Who responded with rage or anger ? All I saw were responses saying your opinion was dense and the poem, as art was rather poor, I think you confuse nonchalance with anger

[Jassy Melson]

And my experiment is still bringing in replies. It's amazing. They can't seem to leave it alone. That's fine with me. Let those replies keep pouring in. The experiment continues.

[Cunninglinguist]

Thank you all for youir comments (and your opinions). The fact that you bothered to write a response to my poem (and my statement afterwards) shows me that the poem struck a chord with you. It peeved you off, didn't it. My objective exactly. Thank you for allowing me to achieve my objective.


And my experiment is still bringing in replies. It's amazing. They can't seem to leave it alone. That's fine with me. Let those replies keep pouring in. The experiment continues.

What occurs to me is that it's not the poem that pricks (if it even does that), it's your character. I would think most individuals who participate in the LitNet forums are mature enough to not be susceptible to something so disingenuous. Yet I pointed it out in the first sentence of my first comment: what’s the point of something like this? What’s the point of even trying to annoy people? What do you ultimately stand to gain? Maybe you’re incentive is to observe how humans psychologically function; but it seems like a thorough self-critique would yield insights extraordinarily more fascinating.

Though you may interpret it otherwise for whatever reasons, my first comment was intended to be advice. Such behavior as you are displaying is akin to that of small children’s. Petty tantrums for attention and like habits will not get you very far here, at least, and certainly does not facilitate intellectual growth. If you don’t want to give up your behavior then you might want to participate in some Reality TV show. With absolute sincerity, you might be inclined to modify your behavior after some consideration of your motives, which seem to be rather juvenile.

[Lokasenna]

Let us suggest an analogy:

You turn up at a Bar Mitsvah dressed in an ill-fitting Adolf Hitler costume. You parade around goose-stepping shouting abuse about the Jewish race. Because you look so ridicuolus, most people aren't angry - they simply think you're a bit of a clown. One or two (and it is only one or two) get upset, and call you bigot, at which point you suddenly hold up your hands and declare that it was all tongue-in-cheek, and your only desire was to get a rise out of them.

Are you surprised when they still ask you to leave?

[Jassy Melson]

The Hitler analogy is very interesting. It makes one wonder why Hitler was brought into this at all.

Eventually, the replies will stop, and then I can analyze them. This has been a most interesting experiment, and I will definitely conduct another experiment in the future.

[Lokasenna]

The Hitler analogy is very interesting. It makes one wonder why Hitler was brought into this at all.

Eventually, the replies will stop, and then I can analyze them. This has been a most interesting experiment, and I will definitely conduct another experiment in the future.

Given that reply, perhaps Dr Mengele would have been a better example?

I merely used an analogy to make the point that if you set out to provoke a reaction, you shouldn't be surprised when they react.

[dafydd manton]

I thought it was amazingly how my children used to behave when they were very small. They'd do anything to gain attention, regardless of how silly it was, then they'd wriggle and try and get out of it when they were confronted with their infantile behaviour. Obviously, my kids grew up, and became responsible adults, though.

[Jassy Melson]

some of these replies are so humorous, I can't help but laugh

[dafydd manton]

Difference is, we're not laughing WITH anybody.

[Jassy Melson]

There were a total of twenty-seven replies to my poem. I am surprised at the number of replies. I expected a few but not twenty-seven.

There were a total of four replies about the poem and twenty-three replies directed toward me. I was quite surprised at this. It seems to me that a poster would be concerned with the poem and not with the poet.

More than half--fifteen--of the replies were what I would describe as personal attacks on me. These attacks took the form of attempting to ridicule or insult me. The replies were basically vehement, and I would describe them as being angry statements in that they consisted of ridicule and what the poster perceived to be insulting.

[JCamilo]

I do not think I saw a single personal attack on you, but on what you said, either the poem or the posting.

[dafydd manton]

Oh, JC, don't encourage him/her. It isn't worth the energy. Best retort I've heard for kids like this - "I've got a goldfish that farts!"

[Alexander III]

Given that reply, perhaps Dr Mengele would have been a better example?


You win !
:thumbsup:

That reply made me giggle

But seriously, new subject of the thread is which of the four romantics mentioned do you deem better or your favored.

Personally its a tie between Keats and Shelley, both of them create a sublime in their poems, which leaves you feeling like for a moment reality loosened its shackles.

[Jassy Melson]

I will post my second observations and my conclusion on Friday.

[Jassy Melson]

Of the twenty-seven replies to my poem, twenty-three were directed toward me and only four were about my poem.

I found most of the replies about me to be humorous. Here are some of the most humorous:

One reply brought in a reference to Hitler and Menegle. I found this to be weirdly funny.

One reply stated that maybe I was too dense to understand Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats. The poster must have had second thoughts that I was too dense, as he shortly afterward deleted that remark.

The numerous attempts to psychoanalyze me in these replies to my poem were just too funny. I bet Freud is turning over in his grave.

One poster suggested that I needed to grow up and become a responsible adult; another suggested that I had my tongue in my a s s rather than my cheek. Quite amusing.

There was the suggestion made that my behavior was akin to that of small children's--a petty tantrum for attention; one poster even suggested that I was not in my right mind for saying that Wordsworth's, Byron's, Shelley's and Keats' poems are drivel.

One poster came out with an outright prevarication. He stated that it was only after the attacks came upon me that I declared that my poem was tongue-in-cheek. This is not true. I stated in my first post that my poem was tongue-in-cheek. I stated early on in my posts that I was conducting an experiment, and that my opinion of the poets in question was the exact opposite of what I expressed in the poem.

The fact that twenty-three of the twenty-seven replies to my poem were directed toward me rather than to the poem, and that more than half of the replies were what the posters perceived to be ridicule or insult directed toward me, gives me pause for thought. I suspect that the posters in question feel an attachment toward one or more of the poets, and when one of the poets is criticised, the poster feels obliged or feels an urge to defend the poet. When the poster feels an emotional attachment to one or more of the poets in question, their defense will take the form of attacking the critic, or directing what they perceive to be ridicule or insult toward the critic.

Conclusion:

The experiment I have conducted in regard to Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats has proven to be quite rewarding. To express in a poem the exact opposite of what one feels is very interesting. It gives one a wider perspective.

As I stated early on in my posts, my opinion and feeling toward the four poets in question is the exact opposite of what my poem states. I think Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley and Keats are among the great English poets. I think Keats is the greatest English poet.

[tailor STATELY]

Epitaph: He brought a pen to a gunfight.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Jassy Melson]

It's interesting that you use a violent analogy. I would be the first to tell you that I'm a harmless person, and I would never attend a gunfight.
As far as I'm concerned this experiment is over.