The Poetry Club Discusses Byron's Don Juan- An informal discussion... all are welcome

[stlukesguild]

Considering that the thread entitled "The Poetry Book Club Final Poll" is not likely to lead to interested outsiders joining in on our discussion of Don Juan, I have started this thread here.

[YesNo]

Thanks for starting the thread, stlukesguild.

Although the story in the first canto is easy to understand and very entertaining, I keep coming back to why Byron spends so much time satirizing Southey, Coleridge and Wordsworth. In spite of his apparent disgust for Southey, he dedicates the poem to him.

Here is part of a stanza toward the end of the first canto which seems to show what poets Byron likes and doesn't like.


Thou shalt believe in Milton, Dryden, Pope;
Thou shalt not set up Wordsworth, Coleridge, Southey,
Because the first is crazed beyond all hope,
The second drunk, the third so quaint and mouthy. (CCV)

So I'm wondering why Byron spends so much time on these other poets?

[JBI]

Thanks for starting the thread, stlukesguild.

Although the story in the first canto is easy to understand and very entertaining, I keep coming back to why Byron spends so much time satirizing Southey, Coleridge and Wordsworth. In spite of his apparent disgust for Southey, he dedicates the poem to him.

Here is part of a stanza toward the end of the first canto which seems to show what poets Byron likes and doesn't like.


Thou shalt believe in Milton, Dryden, Pope;
Thou shalt not set up Wordsworth, Coleridge, Southey,
Because the first is crazed beyond all hope,
The second drunk, the third so quaint and mouthy. (CCV)

So I'm wondering why Byron spends so much time on these other poets?
The first three are archetypal classical authors and masters of English style and thought. Milton the rhetorical god, Dryden the French-influenced neo-classicist, and Pope the Horatian satirist. They stand as traditional models up until the point of lyrical ballads.

As for the next three, Wordsworth is a radical gone sell-out, who took lyrical ballads and without asking Coleridge made it a radical manifesto, and then abandoned it with the rise of Napoleon. Coleridge a drug addict philosopher, and Southey a mediocre poet.

[Drkshadow03]

Thanks for starting the thread, stlukesguild.

Although the story in the first canto is easy to understand and very entertaining, I keep coming back to why Byron spends so much time satirizing Southey, Coleridge and Wordsworth. In spite of his apparent disgust for Southey, he dedicates the poem to him.

Here is part of a stanza toward the end of the first canto which seems to show what poets Byron likes and doesn't like.


Thou shalt believe in Milton, Dryden, Pope;
Thou shalt not set up Wordsworth, Coleridge, Southey,
Because the first is crazed beyond all hope,
The second drunk, the third so quaint and mouthy. (CCV)

So I'm wondering why Byron spends so much time on these other poets?

It's kind of the equivalent of rappers dissing each other in their lyrics. I think when Byron dedicates his poem to Southey it is meant to be ironic.

[YesNo]

I can see the dedication to Southey as ironical and it seems that Milton, Dryden and Pope would be classical in Byron's time.

I wonder if there is anything about the choice of Don Juan as content for the poem itself that might be relevant to Byron's criticism of his contemporaries Southey, Coleridge and Wordsworth. Perhaps not, or not consciously to Byron. He probably just enjoyed the Don Juan story and figured it would be more interesting than what these other poets were offering.

I read through a few of Southey's poems in a collected works on the internet that seemed sentimental and for that reason mediocre. He does seem to have a good metrical technique, but not interesting content.

[JBI]

I can see the dedication to Southey as ironical and it seems that Milton, Dryden and Pope would be classical in Byron's time.

I wonder if there is anything about the choice of Don Juan as content for the poem itself that might be relevant to Byron's criticism of his contemporaries Southey, Coleridge and Wordsworth. Perhaps not, or not consciously to Byron. He probably just enjoyed the Don Juan story and figured it would be more interesting than what these other poets were offering.

I read through a few of Southey's poems in a collected works on the internet that seemed sentimental and for that reason mediocre. He does seem to have a good metrical technique, but not interesting content.

Look at the first Canto - Byron kicks the thing off with an ironic rhyme over the name Juan itself - he rhymes it ironically.

But as a character, the story is old, yet is twisted, and Byron twists it - he is at once rebellious against neo-classical authority, yet also a great lover of it - that is Don Juan himself - he is learned, yet ridiculous, sensible like Rousseau, yet arrogant and defiant like Byron himself - there is much there, and the taking of the classical story and bringing it, instead of in the Romantic vision, into a weird mix of romantic and classical, gives something fresh to it.

Byron is a twisted contradictory poet - the other Romantics are more stable than Byron - Byron is also the one who enjoyed the most success early off, and broke with societal norms in the strictest ways, including conceiving with his half-sister and growing a penchant for anal sex with both men and women, of whom he would solicit on all possible occasions.

Ironically though he also was schooled, classical (writing something like Hebrew Melodies, for instance) regulated in verse, and accepted in households almost as soon as he put pen to paper. A great lover of Pope and Jonson, he nonetheless broke every possible rule, like Don Juan.

That's where I see the relevance, the character is somewhere in between worlds, and much of the comedy of the poem lies in the fact that the poem breaks rules. The rhymes are ironic, the content ironic, Don Juan falls in love as fast as he runs, much of the content is comedic when it should be tragic, or ridiculous when it should be serious.

Likewise, the stanza form itself begs a mention. This is the verse form of such romances as Ariosto's Orlando, or Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered, both extremely popular in their times, and controversial as new fusions of poetry - lyric crossed with epic to create Romance - grounds on which someone like Milton would later criticize Ariosto. Such a form would have special place in Byron, in that the poem is contradictory, in the sense that Pope's Mock-epics are. It is really something out of nowhere, that ironizes as it romances. That I guess would be similar to something like traditional Don Juan tales, such as Moliere's comedy, or Mozart's off of La Ponte.

The story itself is contradictory, as it is one of the oldest anti-heroic stories one can think of. Tristan would be another, but that is tragedy, this is comedy.

[YesNo]

Interesting portrayal of Byron, JBI. The contradictions likely enhance the comedy. I'll keep in mind the "mix of romantic and classical" when reading this further.

Based on the rhyme in the first stanza that you mentioned it seems that "Juan" is pronounced with two syllables that rhyme with "true one". Is "Ju-an" pronounced "You-one"? Or is the rhyme off somewhat? I would normally pronounce "Juan" using one syllable.

When searching for more information on Southey, I found the following by Peter Cochran which describes the antagonism between Southey and Byron illustrated with quotes from both of them: http://petercochran.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/why-did-byron-hate-southey.pdf

If I read this correctly it looks like Southey said Byron was a member of the "Satanic School of Poetry" and Byron claimed to have hated Southey more than anyone else (with the exception of Lady Byron).

[JBI]

it's pronounced Juan like w-on. The fake rhyme is an ironic joke.

[Pierre Menard]

Unfortunately, I won't able to participate. My schedule over the next few weeks is just way too hectic to devote the time needed for it.

I will definitely follow the discussion though; interested to hear people's thoughts on the work.

[YesNo]

I'm thinking that of all the main characters in this first Canto, Don Juan seems to be the most innocent.

Julia was 23 years old and Juan 16 (LXIX) In some jurisdictions she might be guilty of statutory rape.

Then there is the side story involving Julia, her husband Alfonso and Juan's mother Inez which seems far worse than the adultery between Juan and Julia.

[stlukesguild]

I haven't been able to post much recently. My main computer is in the shop and I've been spending much of my time in the evening loading necessary programs and transferring files from my back-up hard-drives to a new laptop. I do hope to be able to spend some time reading Don Juan this weekend. Its been a good decade since I read it and I remember loving the work and Byron's most brilliant character... the narrator with all his marvelous digressions.

[YesNo]

I didn't think of the narrator as a character, but he is.

[Waldo]

"Hail Muse! et cetera.."

[Drkshadow03]

I haven't been able to post much recently. My main computer is in the shop and I've been spending much of my time in the evening loading necessary programs and transferring files from my back-up hard-drives to a new laptop. I do hope to be able to spend some time reading Don Juan this weekend. Its been a good decade since I read it and I remember loving the work and Byron's most brilliant character... the narrator with all his marvelous digressions.

So far the work isn't doing much for me. I'm on Canto 7. I think the parts I dislike the most are the narrator's many marvelous digressions.

[YesNo]

I realize I didn't like the digressions in Canto 1 when Byron satirized other poets of his time. They didn't seem to fit into the story as a whole, but if I think of the narrator as a character as stlukesguild suggested, I look at the narrator's digressions as somehow part of the story and try to make some overall sense out of it.

However, I don't think Byron consciously intended to create the narrator as a character and wonder if there is any overall unity that includes the digressions.

[JBI]

So far the work isn't doing much for me. I'm on Canto 7. I think the parts I dislike the most are the narrator's many marvelous digressions.

:p I would have thought the great classicist would have liked those the best. After all, you are one of the few people I know who can tolerate reading through Pope and pounds of endless science fictional "wit".

[mortalterror]

So far the work isn't doing much for me. I'm on Canto 7. I think the parts I dislike the most are the narrator's many marvelous digressions.

It makes sense that StLukesGuild enjoys Don Juan's digressions given his fondness for Tristram Shandy and In Search of Lost Time.

Oh, and while I'm here: JBI, how is Stephan G. Stephansson viewed in Canada? Is he important? Is he a minor poet? Or do you guys give him over to Iceland? I came across some of his poetry the other day and quite liked it. This passage from En Route struck me especially

The bluish-white tide of the snow had engulphed
Each hillock and hollow as well,
And the frost-haggard trees were like pallid, grey ghosts
From the pale, frozen forests of hell.

[JBI]

It makes sense that StLukesGuild enjoys Don Juan's digressions given his fondness for Tristram Shandy and In Search of Lost Time.
And you? It's like reading Pope with Rabies. That's my general impression of the whole text, digressions of "wit" and ironic criticism of everywhere Don Juan (and Byron) travels.

[JBI]

It makes sense that StLukesGuild enjoys Don Juan's digressions given his fondness for Tristram Shandy and In Search of Lost Time.

Oh, and while I'm here: JBI, how is Stephan G. Stephansson viewed in Canada? Is he important? Is he a minor poet? Or do you guys give him over to Iceland? I came across some of his poetry the other day and quite liked it. This passage from En Route struck me especially

The bluish-white tide of the snow had engulphed
Each hillock and hollow as well,
And the frost-haggard trees were like pallid, grey ghosts
From the pale, frozen forests of hell.
I had to look him up - he wrote only in Icelandic and has, to my knowledge, not been anthologized in Canada.

That being said, I also do not know how much of his work is available in English - my understanding was his reputation was quite esteemed in Iceland, and he had correspondence with top American intellectuals, but he seems to have not scratched a name onto the public memory of this place, from what I know of poetry.

[stlukesguild]

It's like reading Pope with Rabies.

Ooh! Now there's an image.:sosp:

[mortalterror]

And you? It's like reading Pope with Rabies. That's my general impression of the whole text, digressions of "wit" and ironic criticism of everywhere Don Juan (and Byron) travels.

He doesn't really remind me of Pope, and besides I think Pope was a better poet who wrote worse poetry, if that makes any sense. Pope wrote better couplets and used better images, but didn't have Byron's knack of tone, atmosphere, and lyricism. Byron is a little easier to read, because he's not swinging for the fences with every line. He's taking his time and drawing his narrative out. Neither is a very good epic poet but Byron's style is a little less intense and slower so it takes longer for a reader to come to the same conclusion. When it comes to Byron, I think that like Pope he's best in small doses. So we'll go no more a roving is a more effective poem to me than Childe Harold's Pilgrimage or Don Juan.

[JBI]

He doesn't really remind me of Pope, and besides I think Pope was a better poet who wrote worse poetry, if that makes any sense. Pope wrote better couplets and used better images, but didn't have Byron's knack of tone, atmosphere, and lyricism. Byron is a little easier to read, because he's not swinging for the fences with every line. He's taking his time and drawing his narrative out. Neither is a very good epic poet but Byron's style is a little less intense and slower so it takes longer for a reader to come to the same conclusion. When it comes to Byron, I think that like Pope he's best in small doses. So we'll go no more a roving is a more effective poem to me than Childe Harold's Pilgrimage or Don Juan.

I don't know - his lyrics seem not much like Pope, but Don Juan seems Popeish, and Jonsonish (Ben). The rabid quality I see is that the poem seems to sit outside the work of both his time and his career - it seems a comment on himself and his poetic society which is strangely classical in a time of romantic, yet strangely irrational. Don Juan is a diseased poem if there ever was one, and I think that is its appeal, it's far more ironic than is comfortable. It has the same sort of comedy as the Misanthrope, where you do not know who to comfortably laugh at.

[mortalterror]

I don't know - his lyrics seem not much like Pope, but Don Juan seems Popeish, and Jonsonish (Ben). The rabid quality I see is that the poem seems to sit outside the work of both his time and his career - it seems a comment on himself and his poetic society which is strangely classical in a time of romantic, yet strangely irrational. Don Juan is a diseased poem if there ever was one, and I think that is its appeal, it's far more ironic than is comfortable. It has the same sort of comedy as the Misanthrope, where you do not know who to comfortably laugh at.

See for me, I don't find Pope or Byron's satires funny. Irony and wit are usually what intelligent men who don't have a good sense of humor use instead of lowering themselves to a proper joke. Hudibras is a funny epic poem and I think Samuel Butler gets the pacing of the style better than either Pope or Byron do.

Pope and Johnson (oh you meant Ben Jonson, oops) were always so contained and compressed. The verses of Byron's Don Juan seem by comparison rather lazy and casual much of the time, as if he were just dashing them off. Another difference is the scale. Pope and Johnson were always elevating, aiming for the majestic and nobel. I don't get that with Don Juan. Also, Byron's quips at rivals don't seem to have as much sting and venom as Pope's.

[sixsmith]

He doesn't really remind me of Pope, and besides I think Pope was a better poet who wrote worse poetry, if that makes any sense. Pope wrote better couplets and used better images, but didn't have Byron's knack of tone, atmosphere, and lyricism.

Interesting point mortal. I think it was Leavis who remarked that Pope had a sureness and precision of tone that Byron conscpicously lacked, a distinction that is, as you point out, borne out in Don Juan. Personally, the meandering digressions of Byron's longer poems can sometimes leave me a little, dare I say, bored.


As for the next three... and Southey a mediocre poet.

And a sycophantic turncoat according to Byron (and Hazlitt).

[Alexander III]

See for me, I don't find Pope or Byron's satires funny. Irony and wit are usually what intelligent men who don't have a good sense of humor use instead of lowering themselves to a proper joke. Hudibras is a funny epic poem and I think Samuel Butler gets the pacing of the style better than either Pope or Byron do.

Pope and Johnson (oh you meant Ben Jonson, oops) were always so contained and compressed. The verses of Byron's Don Juan seem by comparison rather lazy and casual much of the time, as if he were just dashing them off. Another difference is the scale. Pope and Johnson were always elevating, aiming for the majestic and nobel. I don't get that with Don Juan. Also, Byron's quips at rivals don't seem to have as much sting and venom as Pope's.



When I was 17 and I first read Keats I thought all his poems came from a moment of inspiration full of passion, written in a few moment. Later as I learned more about this literature shindig I learnt that, that was just an effect, that each word was studied over a thousand times and each comma sweated out to create the perfect illusion.

That is the beauty of Byron and Don Juan. It sounds like a troubador just picked up a guitar and began singing a frivolous drunken story, effortless. But the illusion of casualness and frivolity and ease is the great beauty of this poem, no other man but Byron could have made on of the most complex works in literature seem like it came out with the same level of effort as a jingle while pissing.

Also I disagree with JBI on the point that the poem is uncomfortably ironic, I find it so easy and comfortable, like talking with a friend - there is no awkwardness or uncomfort. Just ease and softness and laughter. Though our differing perception on this have more to do with us than the poem on this point.

The first time I read it I thought it was a funny poem. The next time I saw that much like a man, the comic and cheekyness of the poem was a facade for lots of astonishing wisdom about every detail of human existence. The poem was all about the theme of "life is too ridicoulous to be taken seriously" and it satirized heavily all those people who actualy took this little wink of existence seriously. I suppose that is why some may find it uncomfortably ironic and others find it comfortable.

It all depends on weather one is a Democritus or a Heraclitus. This poem was written for the Democritus' of the world and it is very sever and cruel against all the Heraclitus' of the world - which may account for why some people love it and why some find it so very uncomfortable.

Personaly I think Sir Walter Scott put it best regarding Don Juan ,It has "embraced every topic of human life, and sounded every string of the divine harp, from its slightest to its most powerful and heart-astounding tones."

Shelley also was impressed "Every word has the stamp of immortality.... It fulfils, in a certain degree, what I have long preached of producing—something wholly new and relative to the age, and yet surpassingly beautiful."

There is a reason that during the 19th century Byron was considered one of the greatest poets which Europe had ever seen - Don Juan was one of those creatures in literature that only ever appear once and can never be replicated or imitated. Much like Dante's Comedia or Baudelaire's Flowers of Evil.

[Alexander III]

P.s sorry I entered so late on this conversation, but I am glad it is really starting up.

I think it is best if we just throw out various aspects and things of the poem that fascinated us or we were wondering about and we just go with the flow of conversation instead of trying to structure this.

[mortalterror]

When I was 17 and I first read Keats I thought all his poems came from a moment of inspiration full of passion, written in a few moment. Later as I learned more about this literature shindig I learnt that, that was just an effect, that each word was studied over a thousand times and each comma sweated out to create the perfect illusion.

That is the beauty of Byron and Don Juan. It sounds like a troubador just picked up a guitar and began singing a frivolous drunken story, effortless. But the illusion of casualness and frivolity and ease is the great beauty of this poem, no other man but Byron could have made on of the most complex works in literature seem like it came out with the same level of effort as a jingle while pissing.

Alexander you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about sprezzatura. I meant that he wrote a lot of bad lines and he should have tightened up his composition. At times his book feels like one of those popular rock ballads where the musician goes "Hmm, what rhymes with baby? Maybe. Brilliant! Moving on." Or like Gilbert and Sullivan's Major General the narrator will paint himself into a corner with a difficult rhyme and then have to make an awkward stretch or digression to finish the couplet. I feel Byron was careless with his verse making and so the book is longer, and more tedious, than it's subject warrants.


Personaly I think Sir Walter Scott put it best regarding Don Juan ,It has "embraced every topic of human life, and sounded every string of the divine harp, from its slightest to its most powerful and heart-astounding tones."

Shelley also was impressed "Every word has the stamp of immortality.... It fulfils, in a certain degree, what I have long preached of producing—something wholly new and relative to the age, and yet surpassingly beautiful."

Sir Walter Scott wasn't much of a poet and Shelley was Byron's friend. Personally, I can understand if all the padding didn't bother Scott. Have you taken a look at Ivanhoe? It is a mountain of superfluous description burying a small golden nugget of story.

[Alexander III]

Alexander you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about sprezzatura. I meant that he wrote a lot of bad lines and he should have tightened up his composition. At times his book feels like one of those popular rock ballads where the musician goes "Hmm, what rhymes with baby? Maybe. Brilliant! Moving on." Or like Gilbert and Sullivan's Major General the narrator will paint himself into a corner with a difficult rhyme and then have to make an awkward stretch or digression to finish the couplet. I feel Byron was careless with his verse making and so the book is longer, and more tedious, than it's subject warrants.



Sir Walter Scott wasn't much of a poet and Shelley was Byron's friend. Personally, I can understand if all the padding didn't bother Scott. Have you taken a look at Ivanhoe? It is a mountain of superfluous description burying a small golden nugget of story.

But that was to some degree why this poem was so new, it was Byron embracing "low art" and meshing it with fine art to create something unique. I think he aptly dismises all those epics which were so popular in his day.

Now what he did is pretty common, but it is common because he started it. The fascination with the real and mundane and natural and lack of poesy in poetry -

[mortalterror]

But that was to some degree why this poem was so new, it was Byron embracing "low art" and meshing it with fine art to create something unique. I think he aptly dismises all those epics which were so popular in his day.

Now what he did is pretty common, but it is common because he started it. The fascination with the real and mundane and natural and lack of poesy in poetry -

Here's me being Alex - "What you don't understand is that back in Byron's day there were no bad poems. That was an innovation of his. Nowadays, everyone writes bad poems, so as you can see, he was hugely influential."

Me - "Oh, well. I guess I hadn't thought of it like that."

You know, I can not write a good epic poem too. I don't write good poems every single day! Where are my accolades?

[JBI]

But that was to some degree why this poem was so new, it was Byron embracing "low art" and meshing it with fine art to create something unique. I think he aptly dismises all those epics which were so popular in his day.

Now what he did is pretty common, but it is common because he started it. The fascination with the real and mundane and natural and lack of poesy in poetry -

To entertain that idea though, that perhaps does not make it particularly worth reading. That it is new is only interesting in so far as you want to comment on its newness.

I would have to say that it is drawn out, and unpolished - you call it sincere, I would say from your phrasing, I would call it half-as$ed.

[Alexander III]

Here's me being Alex - "What you don't understand is that back in Byron's day there were no bad poems. That was an innovation of his. Nowadays, everyone writes bad poems, so as you can see, he was hugely influential."

Me - "Oh, well. I guess I hadn't thought of it like that."

You know, I can not write a good epic poem too. I don't write good poems every single day! Where are my accolades?


To entertain that idea though, that perhaps does not make it particularly worth reading. That it is new is only interesting in so far as you want to comment on its newness.

I would have to say that it is drawn out, and unpolished - you call it sincere, I would say from your phrasing, I would call it half-as$ed.

Ok well if JBI and Mortal descuide that 200 years worth of literary critism is nothing comapred to their own opinions fine. But just because you may not see the beauty in it does no mean there is a failing in the poem so much as yourselves.

Joyce for example , I don't like him. But I undestand that there is beayty in his work, I undestand that I don't like him because of the short coming in my tastes and not him.

But clearly if JBI and Mortal do not see the beauty in Don Juan it is Byrons fault no theirs...

That is what your arguments sound like right now guys.

Calling it unpolished is just bad reading-looking at the poem you see a High level of perfection every line was create precisley.

But then again Milton's Paradise lots, particularly the parts with Satan are very unpolished the language is so rethroical and convoluted. Milton did that on purpose highly struglled to create that perfect effect. But I suppose that went over your heads too.

Look if you don't like aspects of it, which is very fair considering the poem looks at real life with such a strong eye that is can be very uncomfortable for some. But don't make critical assemnets of the poem deficient soley to make up for your different sensibilities.

[mortalterror]

Are you sure that not liking Joyce isn't an example of your having good taste?

By the way, you mentioned Shelley and Scott, but did you know that Keats disliked the poem?

[JBI]

I didn't say it was total crap, I said it was criticizeable, which it is, and I am not the first, nor the last person who will say such a thing. Byron's Don Juan has not been consistently read in the same light for eternity, has it?

Generally there is a double myth 1) that one cannot criticize works with established opinions of them, and 2) that classic works remain steady.

We can comment on anything we want as long as we are informed and using the text and an opinion - I am allowed to call a poet's work half-assed if I feel it is half-assed.

There is no pedestal that the work stands on, only the opinion of the work's readers.

Besides, I like much of Byron, and I have not really cut anything into him that anybody else hasn't cut before. Of all the romantics, he is probably the most internationally read and criticized, in part because of his ridiculous biography.

[Alexander III]

Are you sure that not liking Joyce isn't an example of your having good taste?

By the way, you mentioned Shelley and Scott, but did you know that Keats disliked the poem?

Hardly suprising considering that Byron had previously declared Ketas a second rate wannabe poet.

But if you wish to play this game I have the father of Romanticism and one of the greatest poets of the last 300 years who declared regarding Don Juan - "a work of boundless genius." Goethe.


I didn't say it was total crap, I said it was criticizeable, which it is, and I am not the first, nor the last person who will say such a thing. Byron's Don Juan has not been consistently read in the same light for eternity, has it?

Generally there is a double myth 1) that one cannot criticize works with established opinions of them, and 2) that classic works remain steady.

We can comment on anything we want as long as we are informed and using the text and an opinion - I am allowed to call a poet's work half-assed if I feel it is half-assed.

There is no pedestal that the work stands on, only the opinion of the work's readers.

Besides, I like much of Byron, and I have not really cut anything into him that anybody else hasn't cut before. Of all the romantics, he is probably the most internationally read and criticized, in part because of his ridiculous biography.

Ofcourse the poem is critiziable, but dam did you miss the mark with your critisism, to say it is unpolished would be like me saying Shakespere is good and all, his plots and characters are great but his poesy is unimaginative.

[sixsmith]

Ok well if JBI and Mortal descuide that 200 years worth of literary critism is nothing comapred to their own opinions fine. But just because you may not see the beauty in it does no mean there is a failing in the poem so much as yourselves.

Joyce for example , I don't like him. But I undestand that there is beayty in his work, I undestand that I don't like him because of the short coming in my tastes and not him.

But clearly if JBI and Mortal do not see the beauty in Don Juan it is Byrons fault no theirs...

That is what your arguments sound like right now guys.

Calling it unpolished is just bad reading-looking at the poem you see a High level of perfection every line was create precisley.

But then again Milton's Paradise lots, particularly the parts with Satan are very unpolished the language is so rethroical and convoluted. Milton did that on purpose highly struglled to create that perfect effect. But I suppose that went over your heads too.

Look if you don't like aspects of it, which is very fair considering the poem looks at real life with such a strong eye that is can be very uncomfortable for some. But don't make critical assemnets of the poem deficient soley to make up for your different sensibilities.

I disagree with your reading of Byron, Alex. Indeed, it is, to my mind, the very lack of precision, the irreverence of tone, the frequent digressions, which render his work compelling, compelling in a different way from a poet such as Pope, for example, who relies on a kind of pedantic intensity. Again, in line with Leavis, I would suggest that poems such as The Vision of Judgment and Don Juan bear out the distinction. Certainly, Byron himself would object to your characterisation of Don Juan as obtaining a 'high level of perfection' due to 'every line being created precisely'. Consider a letter that he wrote to John Murray in 1819 in which he cautioned:

'You ask me for the plan of Don Johnny; I have no plan - I had no plan; but I had or have materials ... You are too earnest and eager about a work never intended to be serious. Do you suppose that I could have any intention but to giggle and make giggle? - a playful satire, with as little poetry as could be helped, was what I meant.'

More generally, I think you're selling yourself, and the very idea of critical reading, more than a little short when you throw up your hands and announce that any dissatisfaction with a particular poem/novel etc is attributable to your ignorance rather than the failings of its author.

[mortalterror]

T.S Eliot, Byron (1937)

Of Byron one can say, as of no other English poet of his eminence, that he added nothing to the language, that he discovered nothing in the sounds, and developed nothing in the meaning, of individual words. I cannot think of any other poet of his distinction who might so easily have been an accomplished foreigner writing in English. The ordinary person talks English, but only a few people in every generation can write it; and upon this undeliberate collaboration between a great many people talking a living language and a very few people writing it, the continuance and maintenance of a language depends. Just as an artisan who can talk English beautifully while about his work or in a public bar, may compose a letter painfully written in a dead language bearing some resemblance to a newspaper leader, and decorated with words like "maelstrom" and "pandemonium": so does Byron write a dead or dying language.

Matthew Arnold, Poetry of Byron (1881)

But although there may be little in Byron's poetry which can be pronounced either worthless or faultless, there are portions of it which are far higher in worth and far more free from fault than others. And although, again, the abundance and variety of his production is undoubtedly a proof of his power, yet I question whether by reading everything which he gives us we are so likely to acquire an admiring sense even of his variety and abundance, as by reading what he gives us at his happier moments. Varied and abundant he amply proves himself even by this taken alone. Receive him absolutely without omission or compression, follow his whole outpouring stanza by stanza and line by line from the veiy commencement to the very end, and he is capable of being tiresome.
continued

His faults of negligence, of diffuseness, of repetition, his faults of whatever kind, we shall abundantly feel and unsparingly criticise ; the mere interval of time between us and him makes disillusion of this kind inevitable.

Byron, Letter to Mr. Moore June 8, 1822

Of all I have ever written, they are perhaps the most carelessly composed; and their faults, whatever they may be are those of negligence, and not of labour.

[YesNo]

I don't think the claim that T.S.Eliot made is true, mortalterror:


"The ordinary person talks English, but only a few people in every generation can write it; and upon this undeliberate collaboration between a great many people talking a living language and a very few people writing it, the continuance and maintenance of a language depends."

I suspect the "continuance and maintenance" of a language is done through the talking. Writing is unnecessary to that task. What Eliot was justifying is an economic and technological situation of his time where very few people were actually able to get their writing published. He was justifying his own privileged position.

It is interesting that Matthew Arnold thought Byron was "tiresome". I suspect that would be the case if one read anything without break, over and over again, including anything that Arnold wrote.

When I think of "tiresome" writing I think of that collection of poems about cats that Eliot wrote and that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Trevor Nunn made into a musical. The musical proves the tiresome nature of Eliot's poetry by an amusing contrast. From that musical, which was chiefly songs written to Eliot's poems, there is only one song that people remember, Memory, but the lyrics to Memory are the only ones that Eliot did not write. As I understand it, Nunn put those lyrics together.

I suppose if I listened to Memory over and over again I would get tired of it, but I wouldn't want to listen even once to any of the other songs from that musical again.

[stlukesguild]

I certainly agree that any writer (well maybe not Dante:biggrinjester:) is open to criticism... especially a poet like Byron who writes in a sprawling, colloquial manner laden with sprezzatura (great word). One reads him more as one reads Cervantes than as one reads Keats or Eliot who struggle and ponder over each and every word. Eliot wouldn't like Byron. He's equally critical of Blake and even Whitman... in spite of the fact that he is profoundly indebted to the latter. One almost suspects a degree of jealousy of such a natural fluidity. Rather than feeling that Byron paints himself into a corner by attempting something over his head, I find myself repeatedly bemused by his audacity. I cannot help by laugh when he actually has the balls to even attempt a rhyme for Cheops.

Of course, as JBI is often the first to point out, criticism is something more than

"Pope is better than Byron"...

"No he's not! Byron's better that Pope!"...

"Your Momma"...

"YOUR Momma!"


Some discussion of actual verses or sections or passages might be nice.



















Oh... and by the way... Byron IS better than Pope.:cornut:

[Alexander III]

Oh... and by the way... Byron IS better than Pope.:cornut:


Amen.

[mortalterror]

Some discussion of actual verses or sections or passages might be nice.

Oh... and by the way... Byron IS better than Pope.

If you want examples to prove how good Pope can be, I made this entry in my journal the other day:

JBI compared Lord Byron's satires in Don Juan to that of Pope, which occasioned me to re-acquaint myself with Pope's works. Before, I had thought that his Virgilian imitation The Rape of the Lock was his greatest achievement. There is that beautiful opening:

What dire Offence from am'rous Causes springs,
What mighty Contests rise from trivial Things,
I sing — This Verse to C——, Muse! is due;
This, ev'n Belinda may vouchfafe to view:
Slight is the Subject, but not so the Praise,
If She inspire, and He approve my Lays.
Say what strange Motive, Goddess! cou'd compel
A well-bred Lord t'assault a gentle Belle?
Oh say what stranger Cause, yet unexplor'd,
Cou'd make a gentle Belle reject a Lord?
And dwells such Rage in softest Bosoms then?
And lodge such daring Souls in Little Men?

But the poem soon grows tedious after that, though not for lack of genius or want of glorious lines. From there I perused his translation of the Iliad, which was even more admirably done if not exact. You can see even here, at this stage of his career he is learning from the masters and incorporating their lessons into his own poems. Just as Virgil began with Theocritus, then moved on to Hesiod, and finally an imitation of Homer. Each imitation was a step up in difficulty and quality for either poet. Pope has brushes with other Latin poets like Lucretius and the introduction to his Iliad even bears the fingerprint of Cicero, though there is just as much Dryden. But when he finally lets himself go in An Essay on Man after a long and fruitful study of Horace, and Bacon to be sure, he is sublime. The Rape of the Lock is a poem by a young prodigy. An Essay on Man is the product of a tempered master. The first epistle was the best, and the fourth was a triumph, but the best section was the beginning of epistle number 2. I think it's worthy of comparison to Keats' famous A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between, in doubt to act or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall:
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

[Kafka's Crow]

Apples were far better than oranges in my local this morning!

[mortalterror]

12345

[Alexander III]

I see the conversation is becomining increasingly esoteric...

[mortalterror]

I see the conversation is becomining increasingly esoteric...

Litnet wouldn't let me delete my comment or make it less than five characters long.

[stlukesguild]

I was wondering about that one myself, Mortal.

[Drkshadow03]

I think I'll record lines and anything else that strike me as interesting from this morning's reading.

But sighs subside, and tears (even widows') shrink,
Like Arno in the summer, to a shallow,
So narrow as to shame their wintry brink,
Which threatens inundations deep and yellow!
Such difference doth a few months make. You'd think
Grief a rich field which never would like fallow;
No more it doth, -- its ploughs but change their boys,
Who furrow some new soil to sow for joys. - Canto X, Stanza VII

I think the comparison between a river's changing water levels to grief is a wonderful metaphor.

Don Juan grew, I fear, a little dissipated;
Which is a sad thing, and not only tramples
On our fresh feelings, but -- as being participated
With all kinds of incorrigible samples
Of frail humanity -- must make us selfish,
And shut our souls up in us like a shell-fish. - Canto X, Stanza XXIV

The ending is one of those really weird and forced rhyme attempts that can be found throughout the poem. The simile about shutting ourselves up like a shellfish is an unexpected image, yet I kind of like it and think it gives a comical tone to the faux moral preaching.

And Death, the sovereign's Sovereign, though the great
Gracchus of all mortality, who levels
With his Agrarian Laws, the high estate
of him who feasts, and fights, and roars, and revels,
To one small grass-grown patch (which must await
Corruption for its crop) with the poor devils
Who never had a foot of land till now --
Death's a reformer, all men must allow. - Canto X, Stanza XXV

This line really struck me. I love how he alludes to the Roman land Reformer and employs the allusion as a metaphor for the equality of rich and poor before impartial death: the rich losing all their estates to one small patch of grass where they will be buried and those who never owned any land now possessing the elusive plot of dirt where they will be buried.

If it be chance; or if it be according
To the Old Text, still better: -- lest it should
Turn out so, we'll say nothing 'gainst the wording,
As several people think such hazards rude:
They're right; our days are too brief for affording
Space to dispute what no one ever could
Decide, and every body one day will
Know very clearly -- or at least lie still. - Canto XI, Stanza IV

Byron considers cosmological arguments, especially those that underlie the atheism/theism debates, to be a waste of time. It's an argument we see a lot in those debates: you can't know for sure one way or the other, until you're dead. So what the hell is the point in having the argument?

I say, Don Juan, wrapt in contemplation,
Walked on behind his carriage, o'er the summit,
And lost in wonder of so great a nation,
Gave way to't, since he could not overcome it.
'And here,' he cried, 'is Freedom's chosen station;
Here peals the people's voice, nor can entomb it
Racks, prisons, inquisitions; resurrection
Awaits it, each new meeting or election.

'Here are chaste wives, pure lives; here people pay
But what they please; and if that things be dear,
'Tis only that they love to throw away
Their cash, to show how much they have a-year.
Here laws are all inviolate; none lay
Traps for the traveller; every highway's clear:
Here' -- he was interrupted by a knife,
With, 'Damn your eyes! your money or your life!' Canto XI, Stanza 9 - 10

I thought this was extremely funny

[Alexander III]

If it be chance; or if it be according
To the Old Text, still better: -- lest it should
Turn out so, we'll say nothing 'gainst the wording,
As several people think such hazards rude:
They're right; our days are too brief for affording
Space to dispute what no one ever could
Decide, and every body one day will
Know very clearly -- or at least lie still. - Canto XI, Stanza IV

Byron considers cosmological arguments, especially those that underlie the atheism/theism debates, to be a waste of time. It's an argument we see a lot in those debates: you can't know for sure one way or the other, until you're dead. So what the hell is the point in having the argument?



That is a great quote and to return to my previous argument this is a great quote. Byron knows how to pick a target.

The world is full of stupid people. And the world also has a large number of intelligent peopl. Now 99% of poetry celebrates the intelligent people - it is a glorifying of the profundity of their sadness and joy and tought - and it scathes the stupid people of the world.

What Byron does in Don Juan is esentialy Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

He says fine, poetry is about gloryfying the emotions and toughts of the intelligent men of the world - well then Instead of satirising the easy target I will satirize them - and he makes the intelligent people the poets and lovers of art and literature look stupid. He holds up a mirrow to the JBI's Mortals St.Lukes Darkshadows Alexander III's of this world and shows us that we are idiots.

He remindes us yes you are intelligent and all that, but compared to me you are an idiot. The audacity of that is stagering, but his audacity is matched by his wit.

This book, is not here like almost every other book to include us to make us share with the author - it is desinged to make us feel excluded and show us what idiots we are. That is why some might find it uncomfortable, no one likes being reminded about how small and stupid they are in comparison.

He verbaly rapes us in this book. And he does it with incredible ability.


This is not a poem about making the educated reader feel superior to the masses, neither does it include the reader in its gloryfying of emotion and intelligence that the reader has - it **** with the educated reader, it shows him how stupid he is - the satire is about us and it hurts - That is why this poem is so unique. Because few men in history would have had the audcaity and the skill to create to satirize the men of culture, it is an ant-poem in a way, a peom which trivilizes poetry and the lovers of poetry.

[Drkshadow03]

But now I'm going to be immoral; now
I mean to show things really as the are,
Not as they ought to be; for I avow,
That till we see what's what in fact, we're far
From much improvement with that virtuous plough
Which skims the surface, leaving scarce a scar
Upon the black loam long manured by Vice,
Only to keep its corn at the old price. - Canto XII, Stanza XL

[Alexander III]

Anyone out there ?