now that I get these things connected in one bunch, some strange connections occur; so this was at the tail end of all the talk about Patrick's snap.
Still, I think looking at one poet's oeuvre as a given state of things misses too much. We go back to Wyatt, say, & some of his seem so,um, 'ordinary' in speech 9while of course not being so, & Shakespeare can do it in the sonnets when he wants to.
So i tend to go with David on how it happens… (happened)…
it's a neat way to slot writers into categories to say everything they write is more or less the same, but it's not.
& within a poet's work many rhetorics might play….
from somewhere in the 20th century, Wordsworth might look like he wasn't doing that at all (but from somewhere else he might…).
in transit so to speak….
On 2011-09-14, at 3:46 PM, Bob Grumman wrote:
> Dave, last of my opinion that Wordsworth was where English Poetry took an Important turn: I don't think of him as epigrammatic or polished the way Pope was. And Rochester. Don't know Dryden well enough to say, but my impression of him is that he, too, seems to use poetic artifice more than Wordsworth. Also, Wordsworth didn't do satire, which I consider more artificial than lyric poetry. He certainly went for grandeur of diction at times, though. (Thank goodness.) Still, he seems to me the first one in the poetry rainbow at the locus where we have to say green instead of blue. As I think I've said before, I wish I were back in my twenties with some kind of grant that would allow me to do a serious study of all this (not that it has not been done already, sometimes effectively) and write it up. I think I could find a find a few worthwhile new things to say about it.
> all best, Bob
[log in to unmask]
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
People say they have to express their emotions.
I'm sick of that. Photography doesn't teach
you to express your emotions;
it teaches you how to see.