Byron, Shelley or Keats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

I once worshiped Keats and loved Shelley. Then I grew out of all that. They achieved a lot for their short lives but most of what they composed was juvenilia to be honest and that comprises large chunks and long poems which came to nothing and miserably failed the test of time. Given the huge bodies of their work, they have a lot which can be rated as ineffectual at the best. The effect on Victorians and Yeats etc is all well and good but you do grow out of this sort of poetry. They appeal to the youth in us who does not know the limits of his own world-view. With the passage of youth we realize that there is more to life than mere life or colour or flowers or the past or even the future. Great poets like Shakespeare, Donne, Ghalib (India), Saadi (Iran) show us what it means to be alive and what it means to stop being alive, to go beyond life, not only the meaning of life but they take us to the final frontiers of life, language and expression. Romanticism has problems, it is unrealistic, it is neurotic, adolescent and immature. Classicism goes beyond all these limitations and truly great literature bears the great lyricism of the romantic poetry and timelessness of classicism because it deals with the timeless, the eternal and the universal as well as asks new questions, provides thought-provoking answers while maintaining the grandeur and sublimity which differentiate it from both romanticism and classicism. Proust's fiction, Donne's poetry and Shakespeare's plays fall into the category of truly great literature.

---

Both Romanticism and Classicism have their pros and cons as philosophies, and Romanticism, at its best, deals with the timeless and the universal just as much as Classicism. Frankly, though, I don't see much value in making this into a dichotomy between the two. Both are highly influential modes that produced their fair share of both good and bad poetry. I won't deny that there is an element of Romanticism that appeals particularly to the adolescent mind, and that many adolescents become enamored with those aspects of Romanticism. That doesn't mean it does not offer other things beyond that sort of adolescent thinking as well. In some ways I've always thought it unfortunate that the Romantic poets are so popular among the very young, because they become associated with adolescence. A similar thing happens oftentimes with Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream which, because of its fairies is often seen as a friendly play to have put on by school children, leading many to dismiss it as something with nothing to offer older people. You may associate the Romantic poets with your own immature past, but I know plenty of well read, mature and thoughtful people--people up into their 80's and 90's--who continue to get a great deal out of the works of these poets even after their own youth is long past.

I have long been of the belief that love (or sex) and death (or mortality) are perhaps the two central themes of nearly all art. Undoubtedly there is much more to most good poems on a flower than merely the poet musing on a flower. Another of the Romantics, my personal favorite, put it well:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

Certainly there is more to Cezanne's apples or Mark Rothko's fuzzy squares of color than simple a recreation of a bunch of fruit or lovely arrangement of colors. Surely there's more to Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Bach's Well Tempered Clavier or Mozart's piano concertos than merely a lovely arrangement of sounds. On the other hand... I don't know that I would credit the subject-matter as being the most important aspect of a work of art in any way, shape, or form. A subject matter laden with the greatest "meaning" and "depth" and degree of possibilities can be fumbled by the inexperienced or the amateur... but it can also result in mediocrity in the hands of the most knowledgeable. There are just as many works of academic garbage as there are of laughable amateurishness. Yes, I agree there is trite and fluffy literature. Harry Potter, as you point out is certainly an example... but is it the magic and the fantasy that makes it so? What then do we make of Beowulf or Boccaccio or the Arthurian legends or A Midsummers Night Dream or the Biblical narratives or even Kafka, Calvino, and Borges?

There are any number of works of real artistic resonance that have been produced by artists lacking a real formal education, training, or experience. There are also any number of artistic works of great depth that began in the most humble... even laughable of circumstances. In Die Winterreise Franz Schubert composed perhaps the most moving cycle of leider ever, based upon a collection of mediocre poems. Mussorgsky structured his masterful Pictures at an Exhibition around the less than mediocre paintings of a friend. Spencer's great mock-epic, Muiopotmos is virtually about nothing more profound than the war between the spider and the fly. Baker's Mezzanine may be criticized for its experimentation with minutia... but perhaps he simply did not do it as well as Proust? As such, I am firmly of the belief that it is the art... what the artist does with his or her artistic language to convey the theme at hand... and not the subject matter that is central to a work of art. If this were not so then every school-trained academic with the knowledge of the great themes of art and literature would be churning out endless works of poetic genius. Of course you state you would rather read a poorly written work of substance than a well-written piece of "fluff". I am clearly not of the same mind. A badly painted painting of some grandiose subject matter is ends up being pretentious... and just plain bad while any number of marvelously rendered paintings of nothing more "profound" than the artist's lover have resulted in masterpieces that have stood the test of time. Indeed... I would most certainly prefer to read a bit of "fluff" such as Spencer's Muiopotmos than any number of stiffly rendered expressions of something far more "serious".

I further need to question your equation of the mastery of the abstract form with something superficial. All art forms are a form of language. Some of what the artist has to say is of great seriousness and some is not. To measure the success or failure of the work of art, however, we must look at how well the artist has utilized his or her chosen language not at how well he or she has chosen a theme. I may disagree with much that an artist has to say, and yet admit to his or her artistic achievement. I don't seek out art as a means to reinforce my own prejudices and beliefs. Much that I find in Dante, Plato, the Bible, the Qu'ran, etc... goes against my own beliefs... and yet in no way would I question the artistic merit of the same. At the same time... what do we make of art that clearly is "abstract"? Do we suggest it is but superficial? Where does than place the artistic efforts of Beethoven or Mozart? Or perhaps music, as Walter Pater noted, suggests the perfect ideal for any great work of art: a seamless merger of form and content to the point that they become one. Such a merger surely exists in many of the finest works of the Romantics as in many of the finest works of any artist.

I certainly agree that Romanticism had its excesses... as did any artistic movement. It certainly could be unrealistic... but so too could Classicism, albeit in another manner. Yes, Romanticism in part led to the notion of the artist as the inspired rebel... but then can we blame the artist for the abuses his or her work was put to by others? Do we blame Goethe for all those impressionable men committing suicide in imitation of Werther? Do we Blame Walt Whitman for Ginsberg and the rest of the beats? Surely that would be one hell of a strike against him. But then we also must credit him for Pessoa, Neruda, and even T.S. Eliot. Personally, I am able to draw a distinction between the artist and the the art. I don't think I would find Michelangelo, Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Picasso, Milton or T.S. Eliot to have been all that personable... but that does not lead me to undervalue their art. Yes, Shelley was probably a jerk... but I couldn't care less. It in no way lessens To a Skylark, Ode to the West Wind, Ozymandias or the magnificent Adonais.

Romanticism is "reactionary"? Well surely a great deal of art is born in a reaction against or in continuation of the world they inherited. Undoubtedly the Romantic may have idealized nature... but this was in reaction to a culture prior that idealized artifice as well as to a world that was slipping into the industrial age. Perhaps Blake's "dark and Satanic mills" seem laughable? Or perhaps he was more prescient than many who embraced the cities and "progress" and "modernism" and "better living through technology". Yes, progress and technology brought us antibiotics and the internet... but it also brought the over-crowded, crime and poverty-laden modern cities, modern warfare, and many other problems. I don't think that the Romantic's idealization of nature was any less naive than the Modernist's and Classicist's embrace of "progress", technology, or "civilization."

I do agree that Romanticism has a far greater appeal to the young... or perhaps that Classicism can seem too... "aloof"... "cold"... when one is younger. Wagner and Tchaikovsky and Rubens and Keats can stir the emotions while Bach and Milton and Pope and Ingres seem too distant... even cold when one is young. However, because I now love Bach and Milton and Ingres and Pope... and because they are artistically far removed from Tchaikovsky and Keats does not mean that I may no longer appreciate their achievements... nor that one is inherently better than the other. Shakespeare, who is undoubtedly a giant by any standard clearly combines the best of both worlds which most certainly may be the best route.

Some posts here really remind me of the concluding words of my thesis on Samuel Beckett. Though written in 2001, I never felt the urge to go back to it repeatedly and read the final paragraph again and again as I have done in last couple of days:

"...Beckett wrote about that which could not be named in our economy of name-giving, name-calling and name-dropping."

The best literature is about love and sex, now that's a good one. Time to change 'long-held' perceptions. Best literature is about expression, its limits and its limitations.

"True wit is nature to advantage dressed,
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed."

Proust and Beckett very aptly fit this description, both occupying the opposite poles. While Proust shows the minor details of life and their deeper meanings, Beckett empties these deeper concerns of their meanings.

Coming back to Romanticism, Lautreamont's Les Chants de Maldoror (I will keep harping on this one book, the original version is highly recommended but Alexis Lykiard's prose translation is good as well). It shows the true horrors at the heart of the decadence, individualism and disregard for tradition. Maldoror is the true face of the so-called romantic tendencies. We blame the 'swinging sixties' for the bad things that happen in our societies but don't take the time to contemplate where those 'swinging sixties' came from.

Coming back to Romanticism, Lautreamont's Les Chants de Maldoror (I will keep harping on this one book, the original version is highly recommended but Alexis Lykiard's prose translation is good as well). It shows the true horrors at the heart of the decadence, individualism and disregard for tradition. Maldoror is the true face of the so-called romantic tendencies. We blame the 'swinging sixties' for the bad things that happen in our societies but don't take the time to contemplate where those 'swinging sixties' came from.

I've yet to get around to reading Lautreamont... in spite of having had Lykiard's translation for some time now. A real gap considering my admiration of much of the French literature of the era. The horrors of decadence and disregard for tradition (I can't add individualism into that mix as I'm not convinced that the voice of the individual isn't a central value of art) don't need Lautreamont to be pointed out. We can see their excess everywhere in our current culture where everyone is an artist and everything is art. Certainly we can discern aspects of Romanticism that point in this direction, but you don't honestly imagine, for all the lip-service that might have been given to the notion of "inspiration," that the Romantics were not well versed in and well cognizant and respectful of tradition. Most of them were well read in the Latin if not the Greek "classics" as well. William Blake was not only well-versed in the Bible, Milton, Chaucer, and Dante, but also in various Eastern literatures including the Qu'ran and quite probably the Mahabharata. We are not speaking of the "indolence" to use Thomas Disch's term, of those poetic neophytes who follow the rants of Ginsberg and the rest of the Beats and are the literary equivalent of 50-Cent or Metalica: mere ranting. To blame Romanticism for the current disagreeable elements of our culture is as pointless as laying the blame upon the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, or the Roman Empire.

"True wit is nature to advantage dressed,
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed."

Indeed!

Obviously both Classicism and Romantism are not real. They are just a matter of perception. That is why some, like Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Beethoveen, Delacroix, etc,etc,etc seems to live in both worlds. The classification just can not fit them because they provoke perceptions that suits both sides.
Anyways, since we use language and our language allow us to make both Classicism and Romantism as real, it is usually good to ask what exactly do you mean by it. Otherwise they are gross generalizations.
This make me think about Borges (who said he was Baroque and turned be classicist by Bioy Casares, as strange it seems coming from a cetic guy) talking about Poe and Coleridge.
Borges said how funny it was to think that a Romantic guy like Poe when explained the process of creation of The Raven used a classic rational approach while a guy like Coleridge, that for borges is a classicist not a romantic, when explaning the process of creation appealed to romantic images and dreams.
Of course, Coleridge ideas are one of the main influences to build up the "character" of Romanticism (he didn't needed to be one, as Goethe never needed to be one or Rousseau) while Poe's are behind the very realism (and even the symbolism) that happened after him.
So, dad, son, fight.

Shelly is more appealing to me., for he wrote very emotionally not running after a boundary.

I think its Byron, Shelley, Keats, just like the title of the thread. Byron was the finest romantic poet. I really like and respect Shelley, especially for his works of horror poetry, but still he was not as gifted as Byron. Keats was the least favorite of the three. I have read little of his work, other than the grecian urn bit.
cool thread. Something I dislike about the romantics is their focus on religious ideals and struggles. I feel that this tendency detracted from the deep emotional impact of these works. I tend towards the horror works, such as Shelley's "Ghasta." For those of you interested in horror in the classics, please read that epic poem. You will find it thrilling.
Please carry on with your conversation now.

Lord George Gordon Byron, because of his irreverence of none other than The Swan of Avon.

Great thread. I go Keats, Byron, Shelley as a personal preference. I think Keats is the greatest "natural", by which I mean less educated or intellectual poet, and I don't mean that disparagingly. Byron is the greatest wit, and Shelley is the greatest on philosophy, ideals, and ideas. I love all of them dearly. I have to say though Kafka, through my studies of them, Shelley is usually regarded higher than Byron, who we could perhaps say is underrated as a poet, and is regarded more for his personality and lifestyle. If we look at the poets themselves, both Byron and Shelley regarded Keats as the best. I love them all, and as influential poets, I would never put Arnold above them, although he is, I know, very highly rated over here in good old blighty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Great thread. I go Keats, Byron, Shelley as a personal preference. I think Keats is the greatest "natural", by which I mean less educated or intellectual poet, and I don't mean that disparagingly. Byron is the greatest wit, and Shelley is the greatest on philosophy, ideals, and ideas. I love all of them dearly. I have to say though Kafka, through my studies of them, Shelley is usually regarded higher than Byron, who we could perhaps say is underrated as a poet, and is regarded more for his personality and lifestyle. If we look at the poets themselves, both Byron and Shelley regarded Keats as the best. I love them all, and as influential poets, I would never put Arnold above them, although he is, I know, very highly rated over here in good old blighty.

---

Hey! I'm new here so go easy on me, I'm just expressing my opinion.

Personally my favourite poet is Byron, followed by Keats and then Shelley, but I am more familiar with Byron's works rather than the others.

Shelley I think is a bit too intense (I'll probably like him more when I gain more insight on his work), but from what I've read so far he cannot surpass Byron in my book.

Keats is a great poet, but after having so many poets from my country describe nature in a million different forms, I kind of preffer authors who don't focus on it so much. However, Keats is responsible for my favourite quote: "a thing of beauty is a joy forever."

Now, in response to the previous post. By less-educated, do you mean that he hadn't had as much schooling as Byron and Shelley? If the answer is yes, I have to disagree. Keats was well-educated. He had been trained to become a doctor, but gave up on that career when faced with the horrors of having to operate on patients without anesthetic (which had not been invented). This experience altered his manner of thinking; he believed that he could heal people through his writing instead of medicine (or whatever doctors back then used).

Now, as to both Shelley and Byron regarding Keats as the best. Shelley certainly did (he did write "Adonais", and when his body was found after his boat had sank, he had a volume of Keats' poems in his pocket), but Byron didn't seem to be a fan of Keats. I am currently in the process of writing a research paper on Byron and according to what I have found, he didn't like Keats' work that well, and he didn't seem inclined to like him in terms of character.

However, overall I think that all three poets are great. Otherwise, people would not remember them today. Their legacy is a sign of just how influential they were both in their writings and in the way they lived their lives.

You are right about Arnold. He doesn't hold a candle to them.

This is a really good thread. Thank you!

I'm now trying to learn more about Shelley's work. Any recomandations?

Keats education as a doctor is nowhere the kind of Educatin that member of nobility like Byron or Shelley, who had university curse and was linked with a group of intelectuals since young age was. I guess that he wanted to mean that, not that Keats was not educated (Some may point for example Keats did mistakes that an intelectual would not do in some of his poems, quoting wrong information, but that is irrelevant to follow Keats poetry and even critical sense, which was suberb).
Byron started as a critic of Keats but later he considered it even attacking harsher critics of Keats - overall, Keats reputation as poet is more steady than Byron and his early death increased the reception of the poems that are published later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Keats education as a doctor is nowhere the kind of Educatin that member of nobility like Byron or Shelley, who had university curse and was linked with a group of intelectuals since young age was. I guess that he wanted to mean that, not that Keats was not educated (Some may point for example Keats did mistakes that an intelectual would not do in some of his poems, quoting wrong information, but that is irrelevant to follow Keats poetry and even critical sense, which was suberb).
Byron started as a critic of Keats but later he considered it even attacking harsher critics of Keats - overall, Keats reputation as poet is more steady than Byron and his early death increased the reception of the poems that are published later.

---

Yes, he must have meant something different, but I interpreted it in another way. I am impressed that Keats managed to impose himself despite being poorer, but Byron is still #1 for me because of that wit of his. Don't get me wrong, I like Keats too and I agree that his early death made him more popular than he was in his lifetime. However, it saddens me that he could have published more had he not died so young.

I haven't found any info about Byron reconsidering his opinions on Keats, but I should check that out. Thanks for the tip.

He coined a famous vision about Keats being fragile and all and having died with a sickness caused by negative critics of Hyperion (critics a bit too harsh because the links Keats had with a group of poets) and in Byronic style attacked back the critics. The thing is, Hyperion - as Keats reckonized is flawed and the rest of the world would have to wait a little to see the whole body of Keats work where we can see his real genius, so it is natural that the first visions of Keats were more negative than the later.
But to say that Byron considered his the best is a bit too much, not Byron, maybe Shelley who had a more "all around vision" could see something like this (because Keats at least had contact with Shelley). The thing is, since this trio is a bit of mythological trio of romantic poet (early deaths, egoistical, passionate, political, impulsive, etc) and lived about the same age, people like to link one with the other, but except the death chain and Shelley -Byron, they had too little contact with each other and are very different individuals.
The "What if" of Keats helps him to be seen as greater (altough I consider him superior notheless) but Byron was the one that dominated the attentions during their lifes and Shelley was the kind of poet which full scope of work was only understood with time.

recite it over a hip-hop beat...

(the poets are mentioned exactly like your question in a song called 'Unwritten' :)! )ha ha!