Jamie,
It is very difficult for me in the context of a forum to present a detailed
argument for my position regarding Wordsworth's influence on UK
poetry. That's why I suggested an email exchange, where I can send
you articles and chapters I have written by email attachment. This can't
be done on a forum for obvious reasons.
My gripe with Wordwsworth is not so much that I don't like his poetry,
but that he is taken so seriously. It is really his admirers that I am
critical of, or rather those admirers that have embraced him to such an
extent that his influence is now supreme.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:33:48 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeff,
>That's what I meant about patronizing - it's wiser not to assume that
people
>you disagree with are idiots, even if they are. "Most people", I think,
make
>their own minds up about what they enjoy. If you mean : do I think
>everything Wordsworth wrote was brilliant then, no, I don't. The
Prelude has
>some longeurs, but I'm ready to bear with them, and I mainly (as far
as I
>can remember) prefer the 1805 to the 1850 version. I was deeply
disappointed
>by the subject matter of his 'Ejaculation', find quite a few of the Lyrical
>Ballads inadvertently comic, find His Sonnets Upon the Punishment of
Death
>repellent in the extreme - and in this respect I think he deserves
>Browning's damning rebuke in The Lost Leader. But Browning also
knows he's a
>great poet ('Learned his great language,caught his clear accents...').
Even
>Byron's attack on him at the start of Don Juan, which I also enjoy,
may be
>shadowed by a sense of Wordsworth's quality.
> If you want to pursue the argument, it might be worth trying to
address
>Peter Riley's good question about where, specifically, you see this bad
>influence manifested. (I don't mean just repeating words
like "descriptive"
>and "mainstream").
> Your next email has just arrived:
>
>>>"The best we can do individually is write as well as we
>>>can, and speak up - wherever that's possible - for the poetry we are
>>>passionate about. "
>
>
>>But when I do this you don't like it.
>
>You've misunderstood me. I haven't ever encountering a piece of your
>critical writing which was in praise of any poetry, and so I don't yet
know
>whether I'd dislike it. You may believe that dismissing huge swathes
of
>poetry is the best defence for the kind of writing you genuinely
admire, but
>I think the strategy is mistaken, and only backfires,
>Jamie
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:34 PM
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>Jamie,
>
>But have you read him critically? Most people just accept on faith that
>he is any good. In my view, his influence has been damaging to poetry
>per se, let alone UK poetry.
>
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:03:53 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff,
>> It's nice to be patronized:
>>>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've been reading Wordsworth with enjoyment for more than thirty
>years and I
>>doubt a further exchange with you on the topic will add to that
>enjoyment,
>>so thanks but no.
>>Jamie
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:43 PM
>>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
>Wordsworth?"
>>
>>
>>Jamie, there is no need to lay into Tim. 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. If you want a serious discussion on why I say the things I do I
>am
>>willing to continue this debate by email.
