it was less a putdown & more an uninformed opinion Alison, & indeed a
generalisation. it's the tone that seems to run through poets of that same
'era' that I sometimes find weak in its constant similarity; always a sort
of artificial importance. not to say that the same doesn't exist in modern
poetry, or that it's a bad thing when it does; just that I PREFER to have
such a tone to be expressed through imagery & un-formal sound. when the
sounds of poetry are set from the beginning to walk (or travel in some other
way) along a certain track, it lays a limit on the kind of poetry that can
be produced. there's just an instinct in me that opposes wilful limitation
like that.
NONE of this is to say that I categorically dislike the work of poets like
those mentioned ("Break, break, break" for instance, earlier posted, I find
very impressive); and I don't mean to slight their influence & effect on the
poetry of the english-speaking world. what I mean is that the liking I may
have for some of the poetry from that age is based on an entirely different
kind of aesthetic than the one that I take as my paradigm when reading
modern poetry (& writing, for that matter). a smattering of each would of
course be a boon, not a confusion.
though the question on whether poetry can ever become 'outdated' or not is
an interesting one. I tend to balk from a lot of pre-20th century poetry
because the vocabulary & the morphology are just entirely different from
those of the variety of english that I speak; & shamed though I feel I
should be about it, I feel an automatic discomfort when reading, e.g., "To
Nature" because there's nothing to connect to for me unless I study & learn
that entire mode of language & thought. when on the other hand, "Kubla Khan"
is generally a very pleasing read for me. I recognise that there is a wealth
of knowledge & pleasure of a DIFFERENT kind to be found, should a reader
decide to plumb the depths of Romantic poetry. I suppose I'm just not
inclined towards that type of exploration; not that I'm incapable, or
entirely disinclined.
KS
On 23/01/07, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I don't understand this kind of generalised putdown. Coleridge is for
> my money one of the most delightfully inventive of poets. Kipling and
> even Tennyson (of whom I remain fond) have their moments too.
> Whatever the problems with him, Kipling could write a storm - read
> Said or Borges on his short stories. All poetry, no matter what shape
> it is, presents a formal problem; what counts is what the poet does
> with it.
>
> And back in the day, the language wasn't archaic. Just reading an
> enormous tome on Dante which reminds you that in 1290 just writing
> literature in Italian was totally radical. Milton's blank verse was
> the leading edge of its time - his introduction to Paradise Lost is
> aggressively brusque. Wordsworth and Coleridge brought "ordinary"
> language into poetry. Etc. For me, these people still hold that
> initial freshness, though you might have to scrape away a few
> barnacles of perception to see it. Cultures always need to neuter
> their artists so that, like good pets, they don't have troublesome
> offspring.
>
> All the best
>
> A
|