Hello Bob,
Oh dear, thereīs no new appreciation of Romanticism here, itīs just a list of well-worn romantic images. I can understand the urge to look for connections and juxtapositions - sorry to disappoint. Whimsy might be a good name for it. Is there a point? I donīt really know, but what are we to make of a theory that doesnīt know whether itīs modern or medieval, collective or individualistic...I wonīt repeat all the contradictions. Itīs not my idea, though, I got it from Isiah Berlin, but in a rather different form.
Best wishes, Mike
--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
Hi Mike,
I guess one of the things that appeals to me with a poem is how I feel when
I'm reading it for the second time...
When I read this for the first time I sort of thought, "H'm, I must be
missing something here that's a new angle, a new appreciation of
Romanticism." I wanted to glimpse something in the juxtapositions of
statements that I was reading! I mean I can remember reading somewhere that
as modernism was now as dead as any cliche'd parrot, the Romantic Movement
may pick up from where it left off... I wondered, therefore, if this was a
re-appraisal, was something new for our new times. What's it doing, where's
it going, what's it hinting at?
Then, when I read it a second time, I sort of felt it wasn't a remix (a
regathering and a re-statement) after all.
So then I tried to read it as a rant (wondering if it was a piece where
there was a compelling energy) but the final comment didn't seem strong
enough for that!
Then I found I was losing my energy in reading it.
And now I don't know what to make of it, apart from it being a kind of
whymsical essay - that's saying, in the end, it hasn't a point... I'm just
hopelessly lost...
Sorry,
Bob
>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: New sub: Romanticism
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:13:55 +0200
>
>Romanticism
>
>But if a writer should be quite consistent,
>How could he possibly show things existent?
> Byron
>
>Romanticism is idealism,
>whatīs true of one may be said of the other.
>Romanticismīs change and revolution,
>opposed to aristocracy,
>the force of a new-born generation.
>It is medieval dreaming spires,
>the peace and harmony of natural order
>and the music of the spheres.
>It is love, and not the will to power,
>the natural love of natural man,
>living for the moment, seizing the present hour.
>Itīs the driving energy of brutal optimism,
>a therapy, the cure for our disease.
>It is self-assertion and primitivism
>and unity at the cost of individuality.
>Romaniticismīs moonlit ruins,
>the transcendent desire for infinity.
>It is spirit combined with chivalry,
>our escape from an industrial age
>to the ancient and historic, misty antiquity.
>It is reverie and homesickness,
>exile and nostalgia.
>It is darkness and the powers of darkness, a pervasive sense of irrational
>terror.
>Itīs a beautiful past remembered by the monotonous present,
>a pastoral idyll of timelessness and innocence.
>Itīs the new, the novel, the fleeting moment,
>a muliplicity, chaos and violence.
>Romanticism means the sane and simple pleasures
>of contented country folk.
>It is Celtic and Germanic,
>melancholy madness, decadence and death.
>Romanticism is untutored youth
>and teeming fecundity, the richness of life.
>Itīs a soul playing with itself in secret delight.
>Yes, romanticismīs idealism, and itīs drama,
>the clarion call to a great uprising
>of bourgeois values against bourgeois values
>when what might seem to be the clash of cymbals
>turns out to be a clash of symbols.
>
>
>
>
>Mike
Hi Mike,
I guess one of the things that appeals to me with a poem is how I feel when
I'm reading it for the second time...
When I read this for the first time I sort of thought, "H'm, I must be
missing something here that's a new angle, a new appreciation of
Romanticism." I mean I can remember reading somewhere that as modernism was
now as dead as any cliche'd parrot, the Romantic Movement may pick up where
it left off... I wondered, therefore, if this was a re-appraisal, was
something new for our new times.
Then, when I read it a second time, I sort of felt it wasn't a remix after
all. Then I tried to read it as a rant (wondering if it was a piece where
there was a compelling energy) but the final comment didn't seem strong
enough for that!
Then I found I was losing my energy in reading it.
And now I don't know what to make of it, apart from it being a kind of
whymsical essay, I'm just hopelessly lost...
Sorry,
Bob
>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: New sub: Romanticism
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:13:55 +0200
>
>Romanticism
>
>But if a writer should be quite consistent,
>How could he possibly show things existent?
> Byron
>
>Romanticism is idealism,
>whatīs true of one may be said of the other.
>Romanticismīs change and revolution,
>opposed to aristocracy,
>the force of a new-born generation.
>It is medieval dreaming spires,
>the peace and harmony of natural order
>and the music of the spheres.
>It is love, and not the will to power,
>the natural love of natural man,
>living for the moment, seizing the present hour.
>Itīs the driving energy of brutal optimism,
>a therapy, the cure for our disease.
>It is self-assertion and primitivism
>and unity at the cost of individuality.
>Romaniticismīs moonlit ruins,
>the transcendent desire for infinity.
>It is spirit combined with chivalry,
>our escape from an industrial age
>to the ancient and historic, misty antiquity.
>It is reverie and homesickness,
>exile and nostalgia.
>It is darkness and the powers of darkness, a pervasive sense of irrational
>terror.
>Itīs a beautiful past remembered by the monotonous present,
>a pastoral idyll of timelessness and innocence.
>Itīs the new, the novel, the fleeting moment,
>a muliplicity, chaos and violence.
>Romanticism means the sane and simple pleasures
>of contented country folk.
>It is Celtic and Germanic,
>melancholy madness, decadence and death.
>Romanticism is untutored youth
>and teeming fecundity, the richness of life.
>Itīs a soul playing with itself in secret delight.
>Yes, romanticismīs idealism, and itīs drama,
>the clarion call to a great uprising
>of bourgeois values against bourgeois values
>when what might seem to be the clash of cymbals
>turns out to be a clash of symbols.
>
>
>
>
>Mike
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
|
