Byron, Shelley or Keats?

[nebish]

The Mask of Anarchy is detectable as an influence in every important political poem subsequently..
Shelley bringing intellectualism and philosophy to English Romantic poetry, that is the essence of the Shelley that "lives"

[JCamilo]

If Anything ,Lord Byron reputation diminished considerably while Keats and Shelley only increased with time.
As nebish pointed, Shelley added to literature because he is the romantic poet that was attuned with the socio-politic ideals of his time. We do not even need to go far, Mary Shelley was of course influenced by him. His notion that a literature is a big book writen by many hands can be found in Mallarme and Jorge Luis Borges. His place in the canon is indeed as secure as Byron's.
Keats "in life" managed to have impact over Byron and Shelley. T.S.Eliot considered the Odes among the greatest poems ever writen and that Keats was one of the most perfect sonnet's creators and admired even more Keats aesthetic theories. The most likely greatest poet of british origem after the romantics, Yeats, is influenced by Keats mostly. The Bronte sisters display equalily influence of the trio (and Wordsworth and Colerdige). Oscar Wilde display influences of Keats.
And that was really a matter of opinion,but I am sure american literature started a century before Faulkner or Hemingway and Twain, Melville, Hawthorne, Poe, Whitman and Dickinson have something to say about it.
The final point is that it is extremelly hard to really measure who is the more popular, influential and this won't be given by personal experiences but the trio is very qualificated and influential.
The only thing we should not allow is the notion that Shelley was ineffective, that is ridiculous.

[Kafka's Crow]

The Mask of Anarchy is detectable as an influence in every important political poem subsequently..
Shelley bringing intellectualism and philosophy to English Romantic poetry, that is the essence of the Shelley that "lives"

Your point about Mask of Anarchy is valid but as far as philosophy is concerned, that has to be Rousseau whose influence both in philosophical and political aspects can not be overlooked. The political unrest in France inspired Romantic Poets and all of them were quite intellectual. Think of Blake when you think of intellectualism, think of Leigh Hunt when you think of political commitment. As far as the influence of friends and immediate acquaintances is concerned, all three were thoroughly influenced by Hunt, specially Shelley.

[Countess]

1) Byron, because he was hot and I'd totally do him.
2) Shelley, because he'd join in.
3) Keats, because he would sit in the other room and listen.

[Countess]

I can't agree with you. He was still 19 whene he get married and he eloped with Mary Godwin because he really loved her . He did it according to his belief that love can overcame any social constriction. Love and freedom will defeat shortcomings and evils of the society. He was just self-consistent.

Shelley was perhaps the first hippie. He believed in free-love and wasn't faithful to Wollstonecraft during the marriage. In fact, he consorted with her cousin, of all people (who, btw, also slept with Byron and had his child) - that's why she wrote Frankenstein.

If anyone "got what he deserved" it was Byron. Granted, I LOVE the man, because I love Byronic heroes and the tragic beauty of genius married with villany and self-awareness, but Byron was as hedonistic as they come. He was a massive slut who'd sleep with anything - man, woman, boy, transvestite girl, transvestite boy - was a drunk and a drug addict who was violent with his wife.

That said, I haven't read a poet yet who wasn't a slutty alcoholic libertine - except for Plath, and that's because she was horribly depressed and suicidal.

Poetic lives are part of the myth that perpetuates legacy and legend - it makes bards more interesting.

[Countess]

which of the three is the only one who can make you LAUGH and can make You CRY..?

The answer to that question is as transparent as Britney's underwear: Bryon.

Don Juan is witty and gritty satire that brought many a grin to my face. "She Walks in Beauty" made me cry because it touched me so.

If I might sustain ostentatious pedantry for a moment,

Shelley was a lyrical intellectual and every thinking man needs his bard.
Bryon was a histrionic feeler, and every emotional woman needs her troubadour.
Keats was a tedious rhymster, and every form lover needs a poet.

[nebish]

Bryon, m'lady? Would that be Bryon Gysin ?

Keats a slutty alcoholic libertine..? Granted he contracted venereal disease, granted he loved his Fanny, but compared with Lord B - who managed over 200 a year while in Venice - his libido was elfin

[Countess]

Bryon, m'lady? Would that be Bryon Gysin ?

Gysin is a cheap imitation of the authentic, sublime Georgie.

[ballb]

Wilde describe Shelley as a boy`s poet whilst Keats was a man`s poet. I prefer the poetry of Keats but revere the politics of Shelley.

[Il Penseroso]

Shelley, Keats, Byron

I think the philosophical merit of Shelley gives his poems more lasting power for me; there's more to consider there. But that's just my opinion.

[JCamilo]

Your point about Mask of Anarchy is valid but as far as philosophy is concerned, that has to be Rousseau whose influence both in philosophical and political aspects can not be overlooked. The political unrest in France inspired Romantic Poets and all of them were quite intellectual. Think of Blake when you think of intellectualism, think of Leigh Hunt when you think of political commitment. As far as the influence of friends and immediate acquaintances is concerned, all three were thoroughly influenced by Hunt, specially Shelley.

Rosseu is a influence of Shelley, but that makes no sense. Rousseau was not poet, he did not wrote anything in poetry that would do the work that Shelley poetic works did.
Blake is a hardly an intelectual, rather a mistic. Shelley is the one linked with enlightment philosophers and thinkers, not Blake that was a hero of anti-reason of all the things. Coleridge would be another true intelectual.
(Of course, all poets are intelectual, but it is used here with reference to academic studies or something similar. Keats totally lacked it for example).
But taking away Shelley influence is like Pointing that they should all bow to Goethe, even Byron and his himself hero.

[lendita]

tthe sick rose is very beautiful,it,s short it's simple and very real.
It describes love as it it .

[mortalterror]

Keats appeals to youth - a melodic sensuousness and a wistful nostalgia that engage younger readers..he does however veer from sublimity to bathos more frequently, a pardonable fault at his age.
Knowing his frail physical condition intensifies the tragic fatefulness that underlies the reading of his work. He is terribly aware of mortality. Hyperion is only a fragment, but Keats evokes a sadness in the fall that is as epically grand as Milton's.

I think that most of what we get from all three poets: Shelley, Byron, and Keats is juvenalia and doesn't stand up to the truly great works of other authors (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, Donne). That's not to say that had they lived they absolutely wouldn't have written poems of greater worth, or that what they achieved wasn't great in itself. I'm just saying that I think their work lacked maturity and life experience. They appeal more to the emotions than they do to the mind. They are erratic, emotional, frequently hystrionic and prone to exaggeration. Nowhere do you find the same range, depth, and discipline which you can find in Yeats, Tennyson, or Frost.

Keats was the most accomplished technically. His individual lines and imagery are better than Shelley's, and a league beyond Byron. But Shelley is the superior poet, because his poems more often than not have better content. Shelley will develop his ideas, whereas Keats tends to scrape the shallow surface of things. Byron may have had more of an influence outside of poetry, but his compositions are a bit simpler than either of his contemporaries. Blake could be simple too, and yet his was a deceptive simplicity, with layers of meaning that I don't think can be found in Byron to the same extent.

I think that good writers age like wine, and most of them create their best work in their thirties and forties. It's a tragedy that these three promising young men never made it that far. For the best Romantic poet bar none I'd have to say it's probably a toss up between Wordsworth, Baudelaire, and Leopardi (however I have not read Holderlin or Novalis).

[JBI]

I think that most of what we get from all three poets: Shelley, Byron, and Keats is juvenalia and doesn't stand up to the truly great works of other authors (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, Donne). That's not to say that had they lived they absolutely wouldn't have written poems of greater worth, or that what they achieved wasn't great in itself. I'm just saying that I think their work lacked maturity and life experience. They appeal more to the emotions than they do to the mind. They are erratic, emotional, frequently hystrionic and prone to exaggeration. Nowhere do you find the same range, depth, and discipline which you can find in Yeats, Tennyson, or Frost.

Keats was the most accomplished technically. His individual lines and imagery are better than Shelley's, and a league beyond Byron. But Shelley is the superior poet, because his poems more often than not have better content. Shelley will develop his ideas, whereas Keats tends to scrape the shallow surface of things. Byron may have had more of an influence outside of poetry, but his compositions are a bit simpler than either of his contemporaries. Blake could be simple too, and yet his was a deceptive simplicity, with layers of meaning that I don't think can be found in Byron to the same extent.

I think that good writers age like wine, and most of them create their best work in their thirties and forties. It's a tragedy that these three promising young men never made it that far. For the best Romantic poet bar none I'd have to say it's probably a toss up between Wordsworth, Baudelaire, and Leopardi (however I have not read Holderlin or Novalis).

I think that is just silly. All of those poets had huge influences, and still have enduring qualities. Byron outsold almost everyone in his time, and even went as far as to highly influence Pushkin's Eugene Onegin with his Child Roland's Pilgrimage. Shelly is perhaps the least successful, I would argue, of the Romantic poets (besides Coleridge, who I would argue was more successful for prose), yet he had immense influence on writers such as the copycat Poe, who is basically Shelly written by Byron. Keats is the biggest in terms of influence of these, and is one of the central figures of English literature.

To compare any of these guys to Donne, I think is rather silly. Donne was a minor poet (though a good one), and his influence was minimal until T.S. Eliot. Even then however, he doesn't even come close to any of these romantics.

[stlukesguild]

I certainly agree that to underestimate the great Romantics is nonsense. Their work is far from juvenalia. Yes... many artists age and mature like fine wine, but many others (Wordsworth, Rimbaud, etc...) completed their most lasting artistic works while still quite young. Micheangelo had the Pieta, the David, and the Sistine Ceiling under his belt by age 30. Most artists have barely begun at that age. Schubert died at 30 and yet ranks among the greatest composers of all time and as THE single greatest composer of lieder or art songs. Beethoven would have been merely a good or interesting composer had he died at the same age. I certainly agree that Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Milton produced art of another order... but that was an art of a level that only the absolute pinnacles of any culture can match: Tolstoy, Montaigne, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Proust, Goethe, etc... Shelly, Keats, Wordsworth and Byron are among the great lyric poets (and Coleridge wrote several absolute stunning poems in his truncated career). They all composed at least a single great long poem... if not an equal to Paradise Lost (and what is?), they are at least far more than juvenalia. As for Donne... I fall in between our previous two posters. Although he may have lacked the popularity or recognition (so did Traherne and Dickinson and the painter Vermeer) until last century, he most certainly is NOT a minor poet. On the other hand... I don't see him as clearly outclassing Keats, Shelley, or Wordsworth, either.