"To me they rely on vagueness to convey sublimity. Unfathered effing
vapours!"
I deal with this in my thesis, but I call it philosophical discursiveness.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:02:22 -0700, David Latane
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeffrey:
>"This is why I think that it's impossible for any mode of
>writing to "express" or acurately describe reality. It can't be done. My
>gripe with Wordsworth is that he thinks it can be [. . .] A
failed enterprise it is."
>Begging the question of whether what Wordsworth would mean
by "reality" is the same. . . what you're saying is that Wordsworth is a
person of very limited intelligence and no knowledge of the western
philosophical tradion. And Coleridge, given his high opinion of
Wordsworth, must have been a moron too. In short, I don't believe
Wordsworth was that naive.
>Do Wordsworth's most moving evocations of natural phenomenon
actually attempt precise empirical description? To me they rely on
vagueness to convey sublimity. Unfathered effing vapours!
>But there's a tree, or many, one--a single field that I have looked
upon. . . . What sort of tree? A copper beech? a big one? what was the
season? What field, where? nada. What matters is that the memory of
the imprecise phenomena evokes yet again the verity--man is in love
and loves what vanishes.
>It is glaringly obvious that Wordsworth wasn't a modernist, or a
language poet. But neither was Keats. And I still can't see why Keats
would give Jeffrey pleasure but Wordsworth can't. While Wordsworth of
course should have shut up (mostly) after the grown-up age of 35 or 40,
Keats remains much of the time a little boy with his face pressed to the
bun-shop window.
>
>David Latané
>
>
|