Jamie,
“No it was genuinely in support of that part of the argument, but I also
wanted to hear Wordsworth himself. If I'd wanted to highlight
deficiencies in your argument I would have done so.”
I will have to take your word about this, but I have noticed much of
your style of arguing is based on insinuation, and I assumed this was
just another example. My apologies if it wasn’t.
“What I wrote: ‘Again we seem to be in the same vicinity about the
divergence between WW's theory and practice.’” Your reply: ‘I do think,
that your persistence in arguing the point into the ground without really
considering what my position is, or addressing the chapters I have
posted, indicates that your position is largely based on faith that what
I am saying is not so.’ It seems odd that you should want again to pick
a fight on an issue where I'm agreeing with you: ‘we seem to be in the
same vicinity’. I've already said I'll look at the chapters but I can't
promise to do that for another week or so - as I'm busy and going away
soon.”
Again, I apologise. I thought you were being sarcastic.
“Briefly - about the contradiction I saw: ‘But it is not so much the
influence of Wordsworth’s poetry itself that has sustained but that of
his ideas’, if I've understood it, somewhat contradicts what you said to
me earlier: ‘It seems that (as far as I can gather) your knowledge of
Wordsworth's copiously published poetic ideas is slim. This is not your
fault, most people are not intimate with
such.’ Being patronized wasn't my point at all - it's merely that if most
people don't seem to know of these ideas then the question of their
influence is likely to be even less of a cultural force. I agree that
theories about poetry have influence - my belief, though, remains that
it's poems far more than theories that influence - which is why my point
about WW's practice being in advance of his theories (which we agree
on) is still relevant.’
When I say that most people are not particularly aware of them, I am
not talking about the critics and academics of the 1930s, 40s and 50s
who were, indeed, aware of them, and to a large extent moulded public
taste, via sympathetic publishers, but the average poetry reader, who
approaches poetry more casually. The major critics and academics of
the mid-20 century such as Richards, Leavis, Abrams, Hartman, et al.
certainly did have a role to play in enabling Wordsworth’s ideas to
predominate.
“When I wrote giving an example of how WW's influence is manifested:
E.g. Browning is being Wordsworthian in A Toccata at Galuppi's when he
speaks of the ‘breast's superb abundance’ because here he is using
the ‘language of men talking to men’. (Why didn't I write a thesis
myself?) You reply: ‘I take exception to your sarcasm about writing the
thesis yourself. As far as I can tell, you have written no articles or
critical pieces in this area, so I think your remark inappropriate. Besides
you haven’t yet addressed any of the content of the chapters I posted.
Your reluctance to do this speaks volumes.’ Both remarks were jokes,
maybe not that funny, but neither sarcastic, at least in any way
addressed to you. The first remark gives a cod kind of example. The
second is taking the piss out of myself, not out of you. You've been
under a fair amount of attack, and from me as well, so I can see how
you could make this mistake - but sometimes you seem utterly to
misunderstand the tone of things said.”
Again, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. It seemed to me,
though, that your remark about writing the thesis yourself was self-
congratulatory from seeing your Browning example as being clever.
“And don't be so impatient about your chapters. I've said I'll look at
them, but I also said I'd prefer to read examples on this forum - or
even, condensed, on your blogsite.”
I will be generous and accept that this is not a cop-out.
“You're right I've published ‘no articles or critical pieces in this area’, at
least none that I can think of - except a short piece on Whitman and
Baudelaire and something about their influence, not even peer-
reviewed. I haven't ever pretended to be an expert on C19th poetry (or
on anything else
for that matter) but I've read and thought about it. My request was for
you to look again at what I was saying in the earlier mail because I
didn't think you'd really understood it.”
I am sure I did understand it, but I just didn’t agree with it.
“You reply: ‘This is asking me to ignore the results of five years of PhD
research and two peer-reviewed articles in favour of what you have said
to me in this forum.’ Again, this is weirdly defensive. It's isn't asking
you to jettison ‘five years of PhD’ (as you needlessly keep pointing out
I haven't read it), it's asking you to reflect on why someone would
disagree so strongly with what you published on your blogsite. My
words were: ‘don't just see it as oppositional but as an invitation to
consider a different, even a radically different, view of the matter.’ To
consider it (more carefully) not necessarily to agree with it.”
This may have been your intention, but your use of the words “radically
different” seems to cause me doubt, because for me to have a radically
different view I would necessarily have to jettison my thesis’s
conclusions because they are radically different from yours. I don’t think
you would have used the words otherwise.
“My whole email was an attempt to reduce antagonism, as I could see
it was getting nowhere, and even to show some areas of agreement.
Yet you've seen it as a series of personal attacks on you and your
thesis. I'm not sure I can do any better.”
I can only respond to what you write. If you write in a manner that is
based on insinuation, inference, playfully disingenuous etc. how else
am I to respond? It seems to me you have merely used this debate to
muddy the water, without having read my chapters; preferring instead
that I miraculously condense a 300-page thesis into sound bites for my
blog or this mailing list.
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:26:15 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeff,
> Again I think my last mails have caused you further confusion. I'll try
to
>do this quickly. (It's Jamie, by the way, though I'm always spelling
>people's names wrong.)
>
>" Jamie, my apologies if I am wrong, but I thought that your choosing
to
>use the quotes was not so much to back-up what I said... etc.
>
>No it was genuinely in support of that part of the argument, but I also
>wanted to hear Wordsworth himself. If I'd wanted to highlight
deficiencies
>in your argument I would have done so.
>
>What I wrote: “Again we seem to be in the same vicinity about the
divergence
>between WW's theory and practice.”
>
>Your reply: "I do think, that your persistence in arguing the point into
the
>ground
>without really considering what my position is, or addressing the
>chapters I have posted, indicates that your position is largely based on
>faith that what I am saying is not so."
>
>It seems odd that you should want again to pick a fight on an issue
where
>I'm agreeing with you: "we seem to be in the same vicinity". I've
already
>said I'll look at the chapters but I can't promise to do that for another
>week or so - as I'm busy and going away soon.
>
>Briefly - about the contradiction I saw:
>“But it is not so much the influence of Wordsworth’s poetry itself that
>has sustained but that of his ideas", if I've understood it, somewhat
>contradicts what you said to me earlier: ‘It seems that (as far as I can
>gather) your knowledge of Wordsworth's copiously published poetic
>ideas is slim. This is not your fault, most people are not intimate with
>such.”
>Being patronized wasn't my point at all - it's merely that if most
people
>don't seem to know of these ideas then the question of their influence
is
>likely to be even less of a cultural force.
>I agree that theories about poetry have influence - my belief, though,
>remains that it's poems far more than theories that influence - which
is why
>my point about WW's practice being in advance of his theories (which
we
>agree on) is still relevant.
>
>I'll skip one point, perhaps the most important, here and return to it
at
>the end.
>
>When I wrote giving an example of how WW's influence is manifested:
>
>>E.g. Browning is being Wordsworthian in A Toccata at Galuppi's when
>he speaks of the "breast's superb abundance" because here he is using
>the "language of men talking to men". (Why didn't I write a thesis
>myself?)
>
>You reply:
>I take exception to your sarcasm about writing the thesis yourself. As
>far as I can tell, you have written no articles or critical pieces in this
>area, so I think your remark inappropriate. Besides you haven’t yet
>addressed any of the content of the chapters I posted. Your reluctance
>to do this speaks volumes.
>
>Both remarks were jokes, maybe not that funny, but neither sarcastic,
at
>least in any way addressed to you. The first remark gives a cod kind
of
>example. The second is taking the piss out of myself, not out of you.
You've
>been under a fair amount of attack, and from me as well, so I can see
how
>you could make this mistake - but sometimes you seem utterly to
>misunderstand the tone of things said.
>And don't be so impatient about your chapters. I've said I'll look at
them,
>but I also said I'd prefer to read examples on this forum - or even,
>condensed, on your blogsite.
> You're right I've published "no articles or critical pieces in this area",
>at least none that I can think of - except a short piece on Whitman
and
>Baudelaire and something about their influence, not even peer-
reviewed. I
>haven't ever pretended to be an expert on C19th poetry (or on
anything else
>for that matter) but I've read and thought about it.
>
>My request was for you to look again at what I was saying in the
earlier
>mail because I didn't think you'd really understood it.
>
>You reply: "This is asking me to ignore the results of five years of PhD
>research and
>two peer-reviewed articles in favour of what you have said to me in
this
>forum."
>
>Again, this is weirdly defensive. It's isn't asking you to jettison "five
>years of PhD" (as you needlessly keep pointing out I haven't read it),
it's
>asking you to reflect on why someone would disagree so strongly with
what
>you published on your blogsite. My words were:
>" don't just see it as oppositional but as an invitation to consider a
>different, even a radically different, view of the matter." To consider it
>(more carefully) not necessarily to agree with it.
>
>My whole email was an attempt to reduce antagonism, as I could see
it was
>getting nowhere, and even to show some areas of agreement. Yet
you've seen
>it as a series of personal attacks on you and your thesis. I'm not sure
I
>can do any better.
>Best wishes,
>Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:56 AM
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>Jaime,
>
> “Don't be like that. If you look back at what I say, you'll see these
>quotes were offered largely in support of your argument. Perhaps
>they're a bit long to be posting, if so general apologies, but I thought
it
>of interest to have his own words. And a relief to read Wordsworth
>himself.”
>
>Jamie, my apologies if I am wrong, but I thought that your choosing to
>use the quotes was not so much to back-up what I said but to infer
>that my position had not taken into account the nuances of his
>statement about plain speech being preferable for poetry, with respect
>to his underlying beliefs in poetry as self-expression and his ideas
>about a philosophical language that is appropriate for poetry. My
>mentioning that I was aware of these nuances was necessary to clear
>up any doubts.
>
> “Again we seem to be in the same vicinity about the divergence
>between WW's theory and practice.”
>
>I do think, that your persistence in arguing the point into the ground
>without really considering what my position is, or addressing the
>chapters I have posted, indicates that your position is largely based on
>faith that what I am saying is not so.
>
>“But it is not so much the influence of Wordsworth’s poetry itself that
>has sustained but that of his ideas", if I've understood it, somewhat
>contradicts what you said to me earlier: ‘It seems that (as far as I can
>gather) your knowledge of Wordsworth's copiously published poetic
>ideas is slim. This is not your fault, most people are not intimate with
>such.”
>
>I don’t follow your logic here. In both my statements his “ideas” are
>mentioned as being significant. Where is the contradiction? If the force
>behind your assuming a contradiction is based on pique because you
>thought I was patronising you, then I apologise.
>
>“And I think this qualification makes your argument about influence
>much more vulnerable. It becomes more an academic question than
one
>of poetic practice.”
>
>If you are suggesting that theories of poetry have no influence on
>poetic practice then this is not the case. Throughout the centuries
>theories of poetry from Aristotle to Sydney to Wordwsworth to Emerson
>to Pound to Olsen etc. have been greatly influential on the way poets
>write poetry.
>
>“When it comes to the crucial point where we disagree - about WW's
>influence on various C19th poets, it looks to me like you haven't
>understood at all what I'm saying. And yet I can't say it more clearly.
>The last mail I sent re-iterates the point even more emphatically. For
>your argument to have any interest it's not enough to say Wordsworth
>is influential on these poets - Shelley, Byron, Browning etc. - it's a
>matter of being able to discuss in what ways he is so. E.g. Browning is
>being Wordsworthian in A Toccata at Galuppi's when he speaks of
>the "breast's superb abundance" because here he is using
the "language
>of men talking to men". (Why didn't I write a thesis myself?)”
>
>The aspects of Wordsworth’s poetic ideas that had influence on the
>poets you mention are plain to see, as you point out. For me to
produce
>a list of quotes from the poetry of these poets would only serve to
>reiterate this. When one has to write a thesis showing the
development
>of an influence, it is not a simple case of cherry-picking quotes from
>various poets in the C19. You have to look at how Wordsworth’s
>ideology and philosophy underlie his theories of poetic composition,
and
>this involves selecting those poets who best reflect, in practical terms,
>the influence of these ideas.
>
>I take exception to your sarcasm about writing the thesis yourself. As
>far as I can tell, you have written no articles or critical pieces in this
>area, so I think your remark inappropriate. Besides you haven’t yet
>addressed any of the content of the chapters I posted. Your reluctance
>to do this speaks volumes.
>
>“I can see that you're being besieged by questions from various sides
>and it must be getting quite hectic replying. What I'd suggest (if you
>can be bothered) is that you re-read that section of my mail and don't
>just see it as oppositional but as an invitation to consider a different,
>even a radically different, view of the matter.”
>
>This is asking me to ignore the results of five years of PhD research
and
>two peer-reviewed articles in favour of what you have said to me in
this
>forum.
>
> “As regards Heaney - I'll look at your Chap. 4 but I think you're
already
>aware of how strongly I disagree with your reading of his work, so
>perhaps there's no point in going over it again. You've read my
>objections to it and there's no sign that they've made any impression
>on you.”
>
>I’m sorry you have made up your mind about Heaney without having
>read my chapter yet. I’m also sorry that our brief exchange, here, has
>not convinced me to jettison five years of research.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:53:36 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff,
>> Very briefly, as I've got some planks to saw.
>>
>>About your first two objections:
>>"Why you have quoted this passage at length mystifies me if your
>point was merely to reiterate what I had said regarding Wordsworth’s
>advocating a plainer speech."
>>
>>"Your next quote...Again, I don’t know why you have quoted this at
>length if it is just to reiterate what I have already said about
>Wordsworth’s desire for plain speech. It just muddies the water, and
>>veers the argument into another direction. This is why I was reluctant
>to provide my outline of the development of Wordsworth’s influence,
>which I did only because you (and others) pressed me to do so."
>>
>>Don't be like that. If you look back at what I say, you'll see these
>quotes were offered largely in support of your argument. Perhaps
>they're a bit long to be posting, if so general apologies, but I thought
it
>of interest to have his own words. And a relief to read Wordsworth
>himself.
>>
>>Again we seem to be in the same vicinity about the divergence
>between WW's theory and practice. Though your point
>>"But it is not so much the influence of Wordsworth’s poetry itself that
>has sustained but that of his ideas", if I've understood it, somewhat
>contradicts what you said to me earlier: "It seems that (as far as I can
>gather) your knowledge of Wordsworth's copiously published poetic
>ideas is slim. This is not your fault, most people are not intimate with
>such."
>>And I think this qualification makes your argument about influence
>much more vulnerable. It becomes more an academic question than
one
>of poetic practice.
>> But no matter.
>>
>>When it comes to the crucial point where we disagree - about WW's
>influence on various C19th poets, it looks to me like you haven't
>understood at all what I'm saying. And yet I can't say it more clearly.
>>The last mail I sent re-iterates the point even more emphatically. For
>your argument to have any interest it's not enough to say Wordsworth
>is influential on these poets - Shelley, Byron, Browning etc. - it's a
>matter of being able to discuss in what ways he is so.
>>E.g. Browning is being Wordsworthian in A Toccata at Galuppi's when
>he speaks of the "breast's superb abundance" because here he is using
>the "language of men talking to men". (Why didn't I write a thesis
>myself?)
>>
>>I can see that you're being besieged by questions from various sides
>and it must be getting quite hectic replying. What I'd suggest (if you
>can be bothered) is that you re-read that section of my mail and don't
>just see it as oppositional but as an invitation to consider a different,
>even a radically different, view of the matter.
>>
>>With reference to Edward Thomas, I am disagreeing (to put it mildly)
>with your estimation of him as "a poor imitation of WW". And I'm
>questioning the nature not the presence of WW's influence.
>>
>>As regards Heaney - I'll look at your Chap. 4 but I think you're
already
>aware of how strongly I disagree with your reading of his work, so
>perhaps there's no point in going over it again. You've read my
>objections to it and there's no sign that they've made any impression
>on you.
>>
>>I wish you'd made your use of the word 'parochial' more clear earlier
>on:
>>
>>"When I say “parochial” I mean it is largely concerned with recording
>or expressing insights gleaned form readily observable (as in
>Wordsworth’s case) phenomena. I don’t mean small-minded or
>geographically parochial."
>>
>>That would have saved me a fair amount of time listing unparochial
>poetics within the last 200 hundred years.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Jamie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:31 PM
>>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
>Wordsworth?"
>>
>>
>>Jamie, let me begin by looking at the quote from the Preface that you
>>cite:
>>
>>‘Humble and rustic life was generally chosen, because, in that
>>condition, the essential passions of the heart find a better soil in
>which
>>they can attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and speak a
>>plainer and more emphatic language; because in that condition of life
>>our elementary feelings coexist in a state of greater simplicity, and,
>>consequently, may be more accurately contemplated, and more
>forcibly
>>communicated; because the manners of rural life germinate from
>those
>>elementary feelings, and, from the necessary character of rural
>>occupations, are more easily comprehended, and are more durable;
>and,
>>lastly, because in that condition the passions of men are
incorporated
>>with the beautiful and permanent forms of nature.’
>>
>>Yes, this is indeed what Wordsworth desires for verse, as he felt that
>a
>>more formal or artificial sort of poetic language would not best
>convey,
>>as he says, ‘the essential passions of the heart’. This seems a
>>reasonable desire if poetry is viewed as being merely communication
>of
>>personal feelings, but as Coleridge in his Biographia points out,
poetry
>>is more than merely self-expression. It was this aspect of
>>Wordsworth’s aesthetic that he disagreed with most, because, among
>>other things, it supposed that for poetry to be sincere it could only
be
>>written by “simple folk” and he rightly dismissed such a notion. Why
>>you have quoted this passage at length mystifies me if your point
was
>>merely to reiterate what I had said regarding Wordsworth’s
advocating
>>a plainer speech.
>>
>>Your next quote from the Preface mentions, what I have said in some
>of
>>my previous posts here, namely, that Wordwsworth sought a more
>>philosophical language for poetry. I discuss this in chapter three of
my
>>thesis, where I show that it was originally an idea of Coleridge’s born
>>out of his reading of the philosopher David Hartley’s theory of the
>>origins of language. (I will attach this chapter if you want to read it.)
>>However, Wordsworth’s understanding of this theory was not as
>>accomplished as Coleridge’s and he was unable to successfully
>>appropriate it to a workable theory of poetics. Certainly, Coleridge
had
>>his doubts about this. Again, I don’t know why you have quoted this
>at
>>length if it is just to reiterate what I have already said about
>>Wordsworth’s desire for plain speech. It just muddies the water, and
>>veers the argument into another direction. This is why I was reluctant
>>to provide my outline of the development of Wordsworth’s influence,
>>which I did only because you (and others) pressed me to do so.
>>
>>When you say that Wordsworth’s practice ‘outstrips his theories’ you
>>are correct. This is a saving grace, as it is with Pound, whose ideas if
>>followed through in his poetry would produce poetry similar to that
>>which Wordsworth advocated. But it is not so much the influence of
>>Wordsworth’s poetry itself that has sustained but that of his ideas.
>So,
>>I can readily accept, that some of his poetry included aspects that
his
>>theory disapproved of.
>>
>>And, yes, the use of the word “ballads” in the title ‘Lyrical Ballads’ is
>>playful and intended as slightly ironic in light of his preface. No one
is
>>saying he was without humour. Your mentioning of Heine, Auden and
>>Brecht, at this point, however, seems unrelated to how Wordsworth
>>used the ballad form, it seems to me.
>>
>>When you say that my argument flounders when I say:
>>
>>“Given this, when we look at poetry that came after it we see these
>>innovations in operation—in Keats, Byron, Shelley, Browning etc. to a
>>more or lesser extents (no one is saying that all poets influenced by
>>Wordwsworth mimicked exactly his style, only that an influence is
>>present). This should not be a controversial point”
>>
>>I don’t see how it does. It is really an obvious thing to say. You go
on
>>to say, Shelley, Byron and Browning, whilst influenced by
Wordsworth,
>>do not always write like him. Again, how does this statement clash
>with
>>what I have said? I admit that no individual poet aware or not of the
>>influence of Wordsworth on themselves will always, in every
instance,
>>write exactly like Wordwsworth, even Wordsworth, as I said before,
>>doesn’t practice his own poetic council at times. So, again, I think
this
>>is just another attempt to take the argument down a different road.
>>
>>When you say:
>>
>>‘If you can see no more in Thomas than this I feel this conversation
>>can't go anywhere. (Thomas was a careful reader of WW: he had read
>>him, as you would say, "critically", and his prose is scattered with
>>remarks about him which testify to this: "In one of his Prefaces
>>Wordsworth writes as if he thought that passion chastened the
>speech.
>>Does it?....")’
>>
>>Again, this just proves my point that Wordsworth was an influence on
>>him, something which is all I have claimed for Thomas and other
>>Georgian poets. I deal with Thomas and his relationship to Frost, and
>>Frost’s dissemination of Wordsworthian ideas, in chapter four of my
>>thesis. You should have had a chance to read it by now. Most of your
>>objections will be addressed there.
>>
>> You say:
>>
>> ‘I agree that Heaney is influenced by elements in Wordsworth - but
>>again in his own distinctive manner: an influence that doesn't equal
>and
>>has nothing that I can see to do with "empiricism".’
>>
>>But this can’t be supported by the facts. As you will see, again in
>>chapter four, I have taken pains to quote at length from Heaney
>>admitting his admiration of Wordsworth’s empiricism. The section of
>the
>>chapter that deals with this has been adapted into an article that has
>>been accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal subject to
>>minor stylistic changes.
>>
>>To answer your question regarding my statement about UK poetry
>being
>>parochial for the past 200 years: When I say “parochial” I mean it is
>>largely concerned with recording or expressing insights gleaned form
>>readily observable (as in Wordsworth’s case) phenomena. I don’t
>mean
>>small-minded or geographically parochial—after all the Prelude was
>>largely set outside the UK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:04:04 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff,
>>>At least there's an attempt here to fill in some of the gaps and
>>>connections. But if not a caricature, it's a bit too vague to be of
>much
>>>interest. Just a few points that I hope won't seem like "instant
come-
>>back
>>>snapping". It might help to look further at your view that WW is:
>>>
>>>"underplaying the importance of poetic form and the use of artifice
in
>>>language with a more prose-like and prosaic style".
>>>
>>>No doubt you're right that WW attempts in his Preface to the Lyrical
>>Ballads
>>>to argue against the separation between the language of prose and
>>what he
>>>calls that of "metrical composition". And he favours the language of
>a
>>>particular social group:
>>>
>>>"Humble and rustic life was generally chosen, because, in that
>>condition,
>>>the essential passions of the heart find a better soil in which they
>can
>>>attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and speak a plainer
>and
>>>more emphatic language; because in that condition of life our
>>elementary
>>>feelings coexist in a state of greater simplicity, and, consequently,
>>may be
>>>more accurately contemplated, and more forcibly communicated;
>>because the
>>>manners of rural life germinate from those elementary feelings,
and,
>>from
>>>the necessary character of rural occupations, are more easily
>>comprehended,
>>>and are more durable; and, lastly, because in that condition the
>>passions of
>>>men are incorporated with the beautiful and permanent forms of
>>nature. "
>>>
>>>More fun in a later passage (echoes of that Heaney dispute?):
>>>
>>>"Accordingly, such a language, arising out of repeated experience
>and
>>>regular feelings, is a more permanent, and a far more philosophical
>>>language, than that which is frequently substituted for it by Poets,
>>who
>>>think that they are conferring honour upon themselves and their art,
>in
>>>proportion as they separate themselves from the sympathies of
>men,
>>and
>>>indulge in arbitrary and capricious habits of expression, in order to
>>>furnish food for fickle tastes, and fickle appetites, of their own
>>>creation."
>>>
>>>WW's attack on artice in language is a break with Augustan
>>conventions, and
>>>even elements in a poet such as Gray. But I don't think in his
>practice
>>he's
>>>naive enough to assume that "poetic form" can be "underplayed"
and
>>certainly
>>>his practice outstrips his theories, or else no-one but antiquarians
>>would
>>>be reading him. But even the word 'Ballads' in the title should
signal
>a
>>>favouring of one form over another rather than any abandoning of
it.
>>The
>>>Ballad may be associated with "humble and rustic life" but that
>>doesn't
>>>exclude the most sophisticated and subtle poetic effects - from the
>>Border
>>>Ballads to Heine, or even in Auden, or Brecht...
>>>
>>>What follows in your post :
>>>"Given this, when we look at poetry that came after it we
>>>see these innovations in operation—in Keats, Byron, Shelley,
>Browning
>>>etc. to a more or lesser extents (no one is saying that all poets
>>>influenced by Wordwsworth mimicked exactly his style, only that an
>>>influence is present). This should not be a controversial point
>>>
>>>seems to me where the argument really founders. WW is a major
>poet
>>and is
>>>bound to effect the writing of his age (so far no-one's in
>>disagreement) but
>>>what we need to know is how. Each of the poets you mention reacts
>>to WW in a
>>>very individual manner not just to a "more or lesser extent" as one
>>might
>>>contract a flu. (Some react caustically or worse, as I've already
>>suggested
>>>in the case of Byron and Browning). Shelley's Ode to Mont Blanc has
>>some
>>>relation to WW but it does something entirely different, and is
>>intensely
>>>self-aware about doing so. Though there are traces of WW in Childe
>>Harold,
>>>Byron in his best work, Don Juan, is rarely descriptive in any way
>that
>>>relates to WW, and it's well known he idolized Pope.
>>>
>>>It's not like there's just one thing we learn from a significant
>>>contemporary. Oh, description is what poems do, so let's do some
>>more of
>>>that. It's more likely to be the case with poets of any quality that
>>if "x"
>>>does this, and does it well, then there's just no point in doing it
>again.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid if I go on it will just look to you like quibbling and
>>>point-scoring, but your remark about Edward Thomas's as being "a
>>poor
>>>imitation of Wordsworth's poetry" seems too feeble to warrant a
>reply.
>>If
>>>you can see no more in Thomas than this I feel this conversation
>can't
>>go
>>>anywhere. (Thomas was a careful reader of WW: he had read him,
>as
>>you would
>>>say, "critically", and his prose is scattered with remarks about him
>>which
>>>testify to this: "In one of his Prefaces Wordsworth writes as if he
>>thought
>>>that passion chastened the speech. Does it?....")
>>>
>>> I agree that Heaney is influenced by elements in Wordsworth -
but
>>again
>>>in his own distinctive manner: an influence that doesn't equal and
>has
>>>nothing that I can see to do with "empiricism".
>>>
>>>We all agree that Wordsworth is a major poet and by this that he
>will
>>have
>>>an always potentially ongoing impact on poetry, but a stronger case
>>for
>>>influence might be made about a number of poets - Keats for
>>example, and
>>>also the influence is always going to be so refracted through the
>>individual
>>>receiver that it will never equal just the one thing.
>>>
>>>By the way, in the course of this discussion you've never said
>anything
>>to
>>>explain what you meant by the "parochialness" of 200 years of
>British
>>>poetry - another case where I've supplied copious examples to
>>challenge the
>>>idea and received none in reply.
>>>
>>>Anyway I'll take a look sometime at your Chap 5 -“Empirical
>>Identifiers”: an
>>>analytic tool for literary criticism", but I confess the idea already
>>sounds
>>>sinister to me.
>>>Best wishes,
>>>Jamie
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:16 PM
>>>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
>>Wordsworth?"
>>>
>>>
>>>Jaime, Ok, I will try.
>>>
>>>It is obvious that 'Lyrical Ballads' influenced the style of poetry that
>>>came after it (even David Latane admits this) by underplaying the
>>>importance of poetic form and the use of artifice in language with a
>>>more prose-like and prosaic style. This can’t be denied, indeed it is
>>>noted for it. Given this, when we look at poetry that came after it
we
>>>see these innovations in operation—in Keats, Byron, Shelley,
>Browning
>>>etc. to a more or lesser extents (no one is saying that all poets
>>>influenced by Wordwsworth mimicked exactly his style, only that an
>>>influence is present). This should not be a controversial point.
>>>
>>>During the next 200 years this trend became more acute until by
>1910
>>>most poetry in the UK, at least, was a poor imitation of
Wordsworth’s
>>>poetry. One only has to look at Edward Thomas and the Georgian
>>poets
>>>to see this. From 1910 till the end of the century, this sort of poetry
>>>was, more or less, despite the presence of Dylan Thomas, the New
>>>Apocalypse poets and all non-mainstream poetry of the 60s, 70s,
>80s,
>>>and 90s, the predominating style. Again this is abundantly
>>documented.
>>>
>>>The significance of Hobsbaum is not that he was, in himself, a
>>>particularly important figure, but that he is responsible for the
career
>>of
>>>Heaney, who has admitted that Wordsworth (via Hobsbaum's
>teaching
>>>of him) influenced him greatly. And Heaney is, I think, an important
>>>figure in the UK, and is taught approvingly in schools etc.
Therefore,
>>>the likelihood is that Wordwsworth's influence will continue long
after
>>>Heaney.
>>>
>>>This is, as I warned, a caricature of the situation, but it was
>requested
>>>of me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:17:34 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeff,
>>>> I'm didn't acknowledge it, I'm afraid. I just said "You've spoken
>>>about a
>>>>prevailing tendency..." I'm still unconvinced about its existence,
>>which
>>>is
>>>>why I was asking for examples and not caricatures.
>>>> See my last post to Tim regarding - "conservative" - though,
>>again,
>>>you
>>>>may be using the term without political connotations.
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>Jamie
>>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:10 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
>>>Wordsworth?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jamie, I agree it may have seemed that my comment about 200
>>years
>>>>of UK poetry hasn't been demonstrated with examples, but as you
>>>>acknowledge it is a "prevailing tendency" and as such difficult to
>>>>particularise without a caricature resulting.
>>>>
>>>>As far as I can tell, most of the responses from people on this
>forum
>>>>(apart from Tim's) have been fairly conservative ones, despite any
>of
>>>>their personal identification or not with poetry that is not
>>conservative.
>>>>I am particularly surprised at Peter's response in this respect, and
>>also
>>>>by Chris's. Perhaps, it just shows the extent of the conservative
>>>>influence (acknoweledged or otherwise) even in the non-
>mainstream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:30:25 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
>>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff,
>>>>> I don't think that your point that "the mainstream always want
>>>proof
>>>>from
>>>>>dissenters but seldom back their own claims up" is entirely
>upheld
>>by
>>>>this
>>>>>discussion. Again, it might help to give a few examples. You've
>>>>spoken about
>>>>>a prevailing tendency in 200 years of British poetry, and quite a
>lot
>>of
>>>>>people who I wouldn't imagine were affiliated with the
>mainstream
>>>>have asked
>>>>>you for some proof. And quite a few of us have given examples
>>which
>>>>might
>>>>>refute it.
|
