 |
 |
I suppose slippery slope is too much an "ethical" term. I just fail to see how anyone is committed to Wordsworth being a modernist if Baudelaire was, that the world is so stupid it can't differentiate between two different antecedents of something. Cheers, Luke On 7 February 2018 at 17:57, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'd agree that one is more likely to see emphasis on their role as serving > as a foundation of modernism than identifying them as modernists. I might > be better considering them less *definitively *modern. > > > You could take it to extremes and say that Wordsworth was a modernist > > The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. > > Anyway, my point was that I thought Baudelaire's antagonism to modernity > was something very many modernists shared in > > >> modernists such as Baudelaire are often said to be antagonistic to > modernity > > Of course I didn't mean he was an English language high modernist. > > Luke > > On 7 February 2018 at 17:31, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> At most he was a transitional figure. But even this is problematic as his >> most direct influence was on the poets Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarmé who >> became symbolists because of it and not modernists. It's true that he came >> up with the term "modernity" but I don't think that's strictly the same as >> "modernism" -- as we know it today. >> >> The trouble with the “origins” theory of poetry is that it forgets that >> everything is on a continuum. You could take it to extremes and say that >> Wordsworth was a modernist because he rejected poetic diction, which led >> the way to free verse though Whitman and to some extent Dickinson. I’ve >> even heard that some of Blake’s poetry is free verse. So it all melds into >> a mishmash. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----------------original message----------- >> >> Luke wrote: >> >> I *think *that's up for debate, if one is so inclined. >> Luke >> >> >> >> On 7 February 2018 at 16:26, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > I didn't know he was a modernist. I thought he was a symbolist or >> > something. He did influence Eliot though. >> > >> > >