(Please don't yell at me because I don't discuss Blake or Southey or Your Other Favourite Romantic Poet. Wax lyrical in the comments instead
( Read more... )
I thought Byron was really interesting and an absolute nutter, but I'm not that big on his poetry.
Wordsworth I always hated, but I watched a really interesting programme on the BBC about him a few years ago, which detailed how idealistic and radical he was (or thought he was), travelling to France to be part of the revolutionary fervour. And then he saw how crazy and bloodthirsty everything was getting and fled back to England. It made me appreciate why he wrote about freaking daffodils later on in life, but I still don't rate him too highly.
Now, Keats! I agree with you on the man. It took me a long time to come to appreciate him, but I remember seeing that sad little house in Rome where he died, having given his life to nurse his brother. And how bitter and young he died, believing he would be forgotten! It made me re-read his poetry and see the tender and knowing soul beneath. I heart Keats.
Byron just has to be so damn epic sometimes. I like the short stuff. His long stuff isn't worth it! That's my dismissive opinion. Keep it short and snappy, mister.
Don't forget that Wordsworth had a baby with a French local. Such a dog in his young radical days! But they were over too quickly.
I think I actually do have enough of an opinion on Blake to have included him, but the post was getting long. He knows people, right. He knows them much better than Wordsworth, without the patronising air. Plus there's that whole mystical visionary thing!
Partly, the romantics were the Yuppie New Age hipsters of their days, partially geniune societal misfits. Byron & Co (including pet pharmacist) in the former group, Blake in the latter.
Obviously, am more interested in paintings and such. Blake though sometimes a bit dodgy in technique (or actually, he isn't - he chooses a certain naievety in style), but look at some of his best works for longer time and your brain will melt. Paintings I can genuinely lose myself in are of Caspar David Friedrich.
By "naivety" do you mean "simplicity"? I think Blake in his etchings often went for a medieval-type style, which is not the same thing as naive or simple.
No, I actually mean 'naivety'... which is not the same as 'simplicity' - I believe he in his later career more and more threw away the rule book, and returned to a more naieve, spontaneous, style ... Return to innocence, and all that.
Perhaps, though, it's just a matter of what definition we give to naieve, simple, etc. Semantics.
I don't believe that Blake's style could be called naive, simply because in seeking to emulate that simplistic medieval style in order to demonstrate spirituality, his works achieved a very knowing style to them.
There's something that moves me to tears in Blake's work: it's always that he is pushing, pushing at this instinctive, raw thing inside us. I don't think I've ever seen a poet so able to combine visual art and the written word so powerfully and with such seeming ease.
I understand what you're saying, but I have to agree with saffronlie that he achieves simplicity rather than (however affected) a sense of the naive.
Comments 18
Wordsworth I always hated, but I watched a really interesting programme on the BBC about him a few years ago, which detailed how idealistic and radical he was (or thought he was), travelling to France to be part of the revolutionary fervour. And then he saw how crazy and bloodthirsty everything was getting and fled back to England. It made me appreciate why he wrote about freaking daffodils later on in life, but I still don't rate him too highly.
Now, Keats! I agree with you on the man. It took me a long time to come to appreciate him, but I remember seeing that sad little house in Rome where he died, having given his life to nurse his brother. And how bitter and young he died, believing he would be forgotten! It made me re-read his poetry and see the tender and knowing soul beneath. I heart Keats.
Also (because you asked for it, marra):
BLAKE BLAKE BLAKE
HE WAS GREAT
Reply
Don't forget that Wordsworth had a baby with a French local. Such a dog in his young radical days! But they were over too quickly.
I think I actually do have enough of an opinion on Blake to have included him, but the post was getting long. He knows people, right. He knows them much better than Wordsworth, without the patronising air. Plus there's that whole mystical visionary thing!
Reply
Didn't Wordsworth leave the French girl there, as well? Pretty mean, bb!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Partly, the romantics were the Yuppie New Age hipsters of their days, partially geniune societal misfits. Byron & Co (including pet pharmacist) in the former group, Blake in the latter.
Obviously, am more interested in paintings and such. Blake though sometimes a bit dodgy in technique (or actually, he isn't - he chooses a certain naievety in style), but look at some of his best works for longer time and your brain will melt. Paintings I can genuinely lose myself in are of Caspar David Friedrich.
Reply
Reply
Perhaps, though, it's just a matter of what definition we give to naieve, simple, etc. Semantics.
Reply
There's something that moves me to tears in Blake's work: it's always that he is pushing, pushing at this instinctive, raw thing inside us. I don't think I've ever seen a poet so able to combine visual art and the written word so powerfully and with such seeming ease.
I understand what you're saying, but I have to agree with saffronlie that he achieves simplicity rather than (however affected) a sense of the naive.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment