David, you will have to read chapter two of my thesis where i discuss
the philosophical influences on Wordsworth and also chapter three
where I look at Coleridge's contribution to Wordsworth's aesthetic. As I
said yesterday, it is a very nuanced area and can't be resolved in
soundbites.
As for my liking some of Keats...I him not because he is particularly
less empiricist than Wordsworth, but because he uses language better.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:02:22 -0700, David Latane
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeffrey:
>"This is why I think that it's impossible for any mode of
>writing to "express" or acurately describe reality. It can't be done. My
>gripe with Wordsworth is that he thinks it can be [. . .] A
failed enterprise it is."
>Begging the question of whether what Wordsworth would mean
by "reality" is the same. . . what you're saying is that Wordsworth is a
person of very limited intelligence and no knowledge of the western
philosophical tradion. And Coleridge, given his high opinion of
Wordsworth, must have been a moron too. In short, I don't believe
Wordsworth was that naive.
>Do Wordsworth's most moving evocations of natural phenomenon
actually attempt precise empirical description? To me they rely on
vagueness to convey sublimity. Unfathered effing vapours!
>But there's a tree, or many, one--a single field that I have looked
upon. . . . What sort of tree? A copper beech? a big one? what was the
season? What field, where? nada. What matters is that the memory of
the imprecise phenomena evokes yet again the verity--man is in love
and loves what vanishes.
>It is glaringly obvious that Wordsworth wasn't a modernist, or a
language poet. But neither was Keats. And I still can't see why Keats
would give Jeffrey pleasure but Wordsworth can't. While Wordsworth of
course should have shut up (mostly) after the grown-up age of 35 or 40,
Keats remains much of the time a little boy with his face pressed to the
bun-shop window.
>
>David Latané
>
>
|