I think I'm probably closer to the Romantics on this one, Ric, than
either your or Harriett, but under conditions of scarcity, rather
than relative opulence. Though I wonder why we need to knock the
Romantics so hard (they had this problem with idealism and WW got
pushed that way by STC) but there was a strong ethical side to
avoiding too easy a blend of materialist "humanature". Is there an anxiety of
influence here? One simple reason why, say, British Land Art is so
different from English Romanticism is the need for a continuity of
relation with nature, to be able to go on addressing it, but under
very different conditions. We owe to the Romantics that they kept
that relation open, they transmitted it.
To say there are only two schools of nature poetry would be daft,
I admit (to Brett Axel) but these may be two underlying threads that
gather a lot around them.
Peter
Peter Larkin
Philosophy & Literature Librarian
University of Warwick Library
Coventry CV4 7AL UK
Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211
Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|