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.