All content forever and ever goes to journalismblues from now on. I update there sometimes! Honest! Like, right now, for instance!
Sunday, June 17, 2007
DETOUR
All content forever and ever goes to journalismblues from now on. I update there sometimes! Honest! Like, right now, for instance!
Monday, April 9, 2007
[on shelley]
I confess I haven't read anybody's responses in any detail yet. I guess the interaction part'll have to come later. Also, might I suggest Bloglines for anybody who doesn't want to check everybody's blog everyday? Handy.
In response to the in-class discussion of whether Shelley is--and I forget the words people were using to describe him--elitist: um, yeah? It runs with the poetic (naturally exclusive?) territory? (I posed those as questions because--?)
What rubs people the wrong way most, I think, is his complete confidence in poetry (see "Poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds" & "These [traces of diviner nature] and corresponding conditions of being are experienced principally by those of the most delicate sensibility and the most enlarged imagination; and the state of mind produced by them is at war with every base desire."). Shelley's conception of poetry differs from our own in terms of what poetry can do.
Personally, I'm not so convinced that a particularly striking line of poetry is that which best channels divine design; I'm not so convinced that poets are the "unacknowledged legislators of the world" in the modern world, where poetry is, to most non-poetic folks, fluffy, stuffy, or fruitless. The difference may be cultural, though Shelley no doubt sounded the fluffy idealist to a number of early-19th century contemporaries. It's not entirely fair to knock Shelley on the grounds of being rabidly pro-poetry; his optimistic faith in the form--particularly metrical--to actually accomplish philosophically heroic deeds outside of an exclusive poetic community is, well, admirable. I wish I could believe my poetry would have a tangible effect on the world (or at least on Western culture, as Shelley no doubt means).
This was a little less organized than I would've liked. In reading the "Defence," I kept thinking of the different ways to examine it--and I'm sure, upon reading all y'all's responses, I'll see more that didn't occur to me--but he addresses a number of important points regarding the poet, poetic form, and poetry's role/importance within society--more ideal than actual, really. Here's hoping some folks scratched deeper than I did.
In response to the in-class discussion of whether Shelley is--and I forget the words people were using to describe him--elitist: um, yeah? It runs with the poetic (naturally exclusive?) territory? (I posed those as questions because--?)
What rubs people the wrong way most, I think, is his complete confidence in poetry (see "Poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds" & "These [traces of diviner nature] and corresponding conditions of being are experienced principally by those of the most delicate sensibility and the most enlarged imagination; and the state of mind produced by them is at war with every base desire."). Shelley's conception of poetry differs from our own in terms of what poetry can do.
Personally, I'm not so convinced that a particularly striking line of poetry is that which best channels divine design; I'm not so convinced that poets are the "unacknowledged legislators of the world" in the modern world, where poetry is, to most non-poetic folks, fluffy, stuffy, or fruitless. The difference may be cultural, though Shelley no doubt sounded the fluffy idealist to a number of early-19th century contemporaries. It's not entirely fair to knock Shelley on the grounds of being rabidly pro-poetry; his optimistic faith in the form--particularly metrical--to actually accomplish philosophically heroic deeds outside of an exclusive poetic community is, well, admirable. I wish I could believe my poetry would have a tangible effect on the world (or at least on Western culture, as Shelley no doubt means).
This was a little less organized than I would've liked. In reading the "Defence," I kept thinking of the different ways to examine it--and I'm sure, upon reading all y'all's responses, I'll see more that didn't occur to me--but he addresses a number of important points regarding the poet, poetic form, and poetry's role/importance within society--more ideal than actual, really. Here's hoping some folks scratched deeper than I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
