Printable View
If Wordsworth was such a rejector of the commercial world, a) why did he keep trying to sell his poetry to make money, and b) why did he accept the cash and titles thrown at him by the monarchy? People forget to realize that in 1843 he essentially sided with institution over his beloved noble-savages, peasant-folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
JBI
[quote]And Italians, and French, we seem to forget that it probably would have happened anyway, it simply wouldn't conform to this Rousseauian concept of the English Peasantry as noble savages, or to a reestablishment of the silly British Pastoral, the Merry ol' England myth which still corsets their literature.[/quote
Yeah, I "forgot", Brazil, NorthAmerica and Spain also had strong romantic poets, it was a very strong "movement", anyways much of what we define of Romanticism is German, somehow translated by the the english poets.
Keats had a strong reaction against Byron than Coleridge, who he respected for the critical writings. They even had similar ideas. But I also agree with Keats being the strongest, much because I think he is the one who didnt need a wordsworthianian change of subject searching for a new language, and looked for something higher, which indeed, gave us his odes and nice collection of good sonnets.Quote:
Of all of these, I think Keats the strongest today, or perhaps the most enduring (my professors probably would disagree) and the one who seems to have had the greatest vision. But we must keep in mind he actually was reacting against the older generation of Wordsworth and Coleridge - he found fault heavily in many of their works.
Byron indeed have a lot to do with his attitude, perhaps Lord Byron is his greatest creation. He can hit the jackpot when he was not talking about himself, just like Shelley when was thinking about politics and philosophy.
Wessexgirl
I would never dismiss those sextet. I think their fault is basically being inferior to Dante, which means, they are most likely among the greatest poets ever. Keats is my favorite poet, alongside with with Blake. I am also fascinated for out of poetry life, such as Coleridge dreams while compared with Poe. Also, I think the romantic poets are the last great generation of poets writing when poetry was still reggarded as superior to prose (considering the poets of first half of XIX Century, maybe Poe, Baudelaire, Dickinson too. Just too much variety). Now, they also wrote when mass comunnication was being born, the idolatry of personality and superior forms of recording writings, so even the crap stuff they wrote still around.
Ah, the old Wordsworth turning back on his youth debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I often think that much of his ideology rises above the man himself. Of course that is something which is not exclusive to Wordsworth either. He, the man is very flawed, like all of us, and as such he never managed to live up to the philosophy that his poetry suggested. I don't for one second think however that we should reject totally and utterly the words on the page for that reason alone though do you JBI?
I for one, never forgot for one second, his acceptance of the poet laureateship in '43, aged 73. Such an acceptance is conservative in the extreme for one who at one stage sympathised with much of the French revolution. Again, however, I don't reject his poetry because of this.
Wordsworth may be a prime example to all to seek the words on the page and not the person behind them.
I personally don't think much of biography when valuing texts, however, I'm of the mind that since the focus here seems to be to idealize his life, one must hit hard with the facts, providing the necessary evidence to the contrary, as fitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
But I'm not idealising his life at all, I'm merely reading the words on the page and what I gain from them. I have already said that Wordsworth the man is flawed. Of course I am coming at this as one who has walked and breathed the lakes for myself, but even so, the words are all that really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Really? Dante is the only poet you'd put above them? How about Ovid, Virgil, Goethe, Milton, Camoes, Tasso, Ariosto, Petrarch, Chaucer, Spenser, Eliot, Homer, Firdawsi, Lucan, Statius, and Apollonius? You know, I think that along with the rise of the prose novel, the demise of the epic poem is due largely to the Romantics seeming inability, or their preference for lyrics. With the exception of Wordsworth's Prelude, Byron's Don Juan, and Blake's Milton it doesn't seem to be their thing. It's not what they are known and regarded for, and does anyone think that their epics stand up to the epics of the past? Nowadays, an ambitious poet is one who experiments with style and not with length. I don't think it's a stretch to lay the blame for our pygmy poetry at the feet of these men.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
God, you guys argue about the silliest fo things. ;) [Yes, I know, I've been known to do so too. :p]
Dante is above everyone else, so all of them are guilty of the same sin. It is not like I am bothering to list everyone (Horace, Yeats, Browning, Pessoa, Drummond, Neruda, Hugo, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Whitman,etc, etc) who are among the best poets ever. I am not up to settle for an arbitrary number and say "Only those 10 are the best poets ever, the rest are out"....Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
No, they are better with Lyrics and I think it is a matter of sensiblity besides preference. Coleridge and Wordsworth explained quite well the reasons for the style of their poems.
Also, the epic tradition was already fading, much before the romantics. Why would they bother if one of their models, Shakespeare, even being able to deal with length, favored the sonnet form while writing poems? If they are at faulty, it is the faulty of dealing with the length of great romances where they could be notable, using short poetry. Blame them as you wish, but this seems to be like playing the devil's advocate.
I agree to some extent, but I think the anthology itself has replaced the notion of epic.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
What I mean by this is, now do to contemporary publishing methods, cheap printing, poets put out anthologies, rather than a few poems circulating. What that means is, the poems within the anthology are able to speak to each other, to be related.
The first example of this in English, I would think, is probably Lyrical Ballads, where the preface seems to indicate the connectivity of the poems - chosen in that order, for that reason. The poems are expressing thoughts within a linear form, each one building on the next one.
A more powerful example though is Stevens's In Harmonium, where the poems can be read as individual, or as one long poem. The poems express related ideas, different concepts, build, argue, and focus on one idea. The anthology allows for a connection between shorter poems to create a long poem.
Now you can get anthologies like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-W...2250418&sr=8-1
Where the poems are a) composed by 3 poets writing under the name Brick not Bread, b) all comparative in subject and focus, and c) all thematically, and topically related.
The anthology allows for short works to be part of a longer work, it allows for Yeats's Wild Swans at Coole to be both anthology and poem, for the poem to sit with the rest, be read against the rest, as well as be read alone. The contemporary anthology is even more focused. You get poems written from certain places, such as this one: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Country-...2250596&sr=1-1
which deals with the experiences of an outsider, an Anglo Canadian, living in China, and his reactions, as well as reactions from natives, to him and country. You also get ones written in certain perspectives, or written in certain styles, or with certain focuses. You get ones that have leitmotifs running through the entire volume (I think of Anne Hebert especially, who is so interested on the reoccurrance of symbols and images in her poems) and also books with reoccurring styles, such as the later work of P.K. Page, which explores different forms and shapes within one anthology.
I think though, that the epic cannot possibly work, because it cannot possibly take into account all the perspectives being hurled at us today. An epic, by definition I would think, is rather impersonal, is supposed to be rather detached from the author, and focus more on a larger picture, and I think the diversity of perspectives makes that more problematic than anything else. Either way though, epics are rather boring when attempted now. Merrill did one which was O.K., and Walcott did a couple, which were alright, but I think the closest anyone has come to a lasting one in the past 100 years in English, and I mean a strong epic, not just a long poem, has to be Eliot, but he didn't write an epic, he just modernized certain aspects of epic. I know personally of one established poet who is currently in the process of writing an epic, which will no doubt, if he finishes it, be published soon after (I have heard him read a sample at a book reading on campus, that is how I can verify it) but even that will be a gimmick, and not a true epic in the Virgilian sense.
I think the Anthology is a better form than the epic anyway, in terms of ability to work for our culture. The Anthology offers many different perspectives to function within one longer work, which is quite helpful, regardless of their conflict, whereas the epic must maintain far more connectivity.
I don't doubt that we may see an emergence of more verse novels. I can think of two that have come out and been really successful in the past 20 years (Wyllah Falls by George Elliott Clarke and Autobiography of Red by Anne Carson) and one rather mediocre, though still highly successful one The Golden Gate by Vikram Seth, and I bet more will be out shortly.
Even so though, it makes no difference. Japan's tradition is built on for the most part very, very short poems, and I don't think that hampers them at all. I think both traditions suit the cultures they work for, in context, and that is that. If the poets don't want to write epics, there is probably a reason. If one comes along and writes a successful one, there is probably a reason behind that, but as it is, I can't see how one would work in the traditional sense. It would need to radically redefine the genre if it were to work at all.
Far better than the "Who do you like more" preoccupation on these boards though, you must admit, it is far more constructive, and far more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I really like Keats, I think some of the imagery in his poems is stunning. I find his writing very sensative too, when I read Keats I feel he potrays alot of emotion through his words, when he writes;
''Then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think,
Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink.''
It evoked emotion in me, because it's as though you can imagine feeling how he does, it's such a lonely image. That's why I like Keats. Lol. :)
Well, while I think the question was raised for the sake of bringing up some discussion only, I would add that Epic Poetry, since it is mostly narrative, was damaged before lyrical poetry by the raising of the prose. Cervantes, Rabelais, etc showed capacity to produce without verses and when the XIX prose was even more developed.
Also, with philosophical change and anti-religiousity, the themes that could be suited for epics are less "appealing"...
Quickly thinking, Camões was as good with Lusiadas as with his sonnets, in spain Quevedo and Lope de Vega are dealing with short texts, Villon and La Fontaine in france, Petrarch himself was famous for the sonnets... so it cannt be the romantics
Meanwhile, Ovid Metamorphosis, written today could be called a collection of short stories, rather than a novel or romance... New forms were developed to suit for the different needs.
How could it have replaced the epic when it co-existed with the epic for thousands of years? You see similar patterns of interrelated poems in Virgil's Georgics, Statius' Silvae, Petrarch's Canzoniere, and Spenser's Amoretti. These same gentlemen would go on to write The Aeneid, The Thebaid, Africa, and The Faerie Queene. I see no contradiction. That's like how Faulkner claims that his collection of short stories Go Down, Moses is a novel because of the structure and thematic unity. Groups of short stories are still groups of short stories any way you slice them, just as groups of poems are still groups of poems, and they haven't replaced the novel have they?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You say that Japan has a good tradition of short poetry. I'm going to make a judgement call and say that there are some things you cannot say in 17 syllables, or in a commercial, a sound bite, a campaign slogan, or a quip. Some ideas are too big to be handled in a sentence, or a single hour television program. Furthermore, there are things you can do with a long form which you cannot do in the short form. There is a certain range of human experience that short works cannot hope to speak to and that is the proper subject matter of epic literature. An epic is not a long lyric or an overgrown sonnet. It is not the thematic unity or structure which makes the poem epic. An epic is a fully developed, completely adult, complex idea considered from all sides and brought to it's natural conclusion in the goodness of time. I do not think that intelligent ideas ever go out of fashion. Society has an appetite for them, and right now I believe it's starving.
Really? Dante is the only poet you'd put above them? How about Ovid, Virgil, Goethe, Milton, Camoes, Tasso, Ariosto, Petrarch, Chaucer, Spenser, Eliot, Homer, Firdawsi, Lucan, Statius, and Apollonius?
Actually, I would put quite a few poets ahead of the English Romantics, many more on par with them, and admit that there are probably quite a few others worthy of equal status of whom I am not aware... or of whom I am limited to mediocre or non-existent translations.
You know, I think that along with the rise of the prose novel, the demise of the epic poem is due largely to the Romantics seeming inability, or their preference for lyrics. With the exception of Wordsworth's Prelude, Byron's Don Juan, and Blake's Milton it doesn't seem to be their thing. It's not what they are known and regarded for, and does anyone think that their epics stand up to the epics of the past? Nowadays, an ambitious poet is one who experiments with style and not with length. I don't think it's a stretch to lay the blame for our pygmy poetry at the feet of these men.
This argument may have some valid points... but one might also point out that the rise of the novel... under the noses of the 18th century poets... did far more to end the reign of the epic poem. I can't think of a single epic poem by Pope, Swift, Gay, Johnson, etc... that can come near the achievements of the 18th century novel: Richardson, Fielding, DeFoe, Smollett, Sterne, Hogg, etc... to say nothing of Swift's own efforts in prose narrative. I might also note that there are any number of poets of great merit who never mastered or even attempted epic poetry: Petrarch, Cavalcanti, Donne, Traherne, Rilke, Heine, Garcia-Lorca, Baudelaire, Whitman, Dickinson, Verlaine... to say nothing of Japanese and Chinese poets, etc... I agree with JBI that the anthology or the collection (Leaves of Grass, Flowers of Evil, Rilke's New Poems, etc...) may have replaced the epic. Then again... considering something like Petrarch Canzoniere and many other poet's collections, the anthology (look especially to the volumes of Chinese and Japanese poetry... or the Divan's of many Middle-Eastern poets) has long been capable of standing as an aesthetic rival to the epic.
I would also note that any attack upon the Romantics for their failure to achieve a great unified epic poetry is also unfair when one considers the circumstances of the poets. Milton was in his 60s when he completed Paradise Lost. Dante began the Comedia in his mid-40s and continued until his death. Virgil was well into his 40s when he began the Aeneid. Byron was dead at 36. Shelley is dead at 29; Keats at 26. How well remembered would Dante, Milton, or Virgil have been had they died at such an early age? Would they be able to rival or surpass Keats and Byron? Certainly Coleridge has no one to blame but himself and quite probably his drug abuse for his early aesthetic "death"... excepting his critical writings. And Wordsworth burns out early... but his earlier work is laden with some marvelous stuff... and with the Prelude he may just come closest to a "modern" successful epic (not to forget Byron's Don Juan).
Blake? Well as I have repeatedly admitted, I find him to be something different altogether. In a way he attempted something akin to what Wagner achieved with his Ring cycle: a Gesamtkunstwerk... yet in Blake's instance... it was an attempt to merge the visual with the written work. It must always be remembered that Blake was first and foremost a visual artist: trained as a print-maker/engraver, his goal was to create a visual epic set to his own narratives to rival the fresco cycles of the Italian Renaissance... and the illuminated manuscripts of the middle-ages. Blake's sights were set so high... he was essentially attempting to create a new Sistine set to his own visionary religious/mythological narrative. No one could be expected to succeed at such a goal... and especially one whose artistic efforts were continually hampered by abject poverty... and yet he came close. His failures are absolutely brilliant.
You say that Japan has a good tradition of short poetry. I'm going to make a judgement call and say that there are some things you cannot say in 17 syllables, or in a commercial, a sound bite, a campaign slogan, or a quip. Some ideas are too big to be handled in a sentence, or a single hour television program. Furthermore, there are things you can do with a long form which you cannot do in the short form. There is a certain range of human experience that short works cannot hope to speak to and that is the proper subject matter of epic literature. An epic is not a long lyric or an overgrown sonnet. It is not the thematic unity or structure which makes the poem epic. An epic is a fully developed, completely adult, complex idea considered from all sides and brought to it's natural conclusion in the goodness of time. I do not think that intelligent ideas ever go out of fashion. Society has an appetite for them, and right now I believe it's starving.
I agree that the notion of the "Epic" work of art has not gone out of fashion... and certainly there are novels that are "epic" in scope, scale, and seriousness of content. I'm not going to argue JBI's contracted interpretation of an "Epic" as limited to a culture with a single unified mythological/religious foundation. I have no allusions that the Rome of Virgil's time, the Greece of Homer, the Portugal of Camões, the Persia of Firdowsi, or the London of Milton were in any way lacking an influx of outside influences and a turmoil of conflicting world views. Indeed, I see no reason why an "epic" work might not deal with such a diversity. But do we imagine that the "epic" must be limited to "poetic" form only? And speaking of such... has anyone read Kazantzakis' The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel?