I don't understand this kind of generalised putdown. Coleridge is for
my money one of the most delightfully inventive of poets. Kipling and
even Tennyson (of whom I remain fond) have their moments too.
Whatever the problems with him, Kipling could write a storm - read
Said or Borges on his short stories. All poetry, no matter what shape
it is, presents a formal problem; what counts is what the poet does
with it.
And back in the day, the language wasn't archaic. Just reading an
enormous tome on Dante which reminds you that in 1290 just writing
literature in Italian was totally radical. Milton's blank verse was
the leading edge of its time - his introduction to Paradise Lost is
aggressively brusque. Wordsworth and Coleridge brought "ordinary"
language into poetry. Etc. For me, these people still hold that
initial freshness, though you might have to scrape away a few
barnacles of perception to see it. Cultures always need to neuter
their artists so that, like good pets, they don't have troublesome
offspring.
All the best
A
On 1/24/07, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What a weird quartet. I used to think the way you say you do in that
> note, Kasper, but have changed somewhat. I mean, I can really admire a
> lot of the poetry of at least the last two, without ever wanting to try
> the same thing. I suspect a lot of modern writers feel the same way
> about the great writers of the past.
>
> Doug
> On 22-Jan-07, at 7:05 PM, kasper salonen wrote:
>
> > Kipling/Tennyson/Coleridge/Browning
> Douglas Barbour
> 11655 - 72 Avenue NW
> Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
> (780) 436 3320
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>
>
> the words come down on
> the white page a dream of snow
>
> at mid-Atlantic.
>
> Wayne Clifford
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|