Preface to Lyrical Ballads

I have had a fondness for William Wordsworth’s Writing ever since ' The Ruined Cottage '. He would arguably be my favorite poet, and thus one of the reasons why I am taking this course. This is my fourth time reading Preface, so I am accustomed to the language, themes and variations in the text. Preface is a perfect example of a Manifesto. When one thinks of an ordinary preface, one assumes that the writer addresses the content of the work that he/she puts forth. This is not exactly the case with Wordsworth's Preface. Wordsworth ironically abuses this assumption to platform his theory on poesy ( but he asserts that he only did this because he was persuaded by his colleagues).

One of Wordsworth’s most famous lines “ for all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings ”, elicits the question: so what is good poetry ? Wordsworth’s main argument is that the Contemporary Poet confuses his readers who “ frequently have to struggle with feelings of strangeness and awkwardness ” (596). He believes that poets try to flatter themselves by using rhetorical language in a way that only further distances the reader from the poem. Wordsworth offers an alternative, he states that the best language to use is the ‘ language used by men ’; Plain, simple language that incorporated a lot of imagery, would present “ ordinary things…in an unusual way ”(597). This was the optimal process according to Wordsworth, for in doing so the poet would be creating a sort of dialectical engine known as the sublime.

I think that Wordsworth appeals to a lot of readers because he empathetically identified the gaudiness of poetry that was apparent at the time. He was able to appeal to an audience because they enjoyed the simplicity of his poetry. Interestingly enough, many critics argue that Wordsworth is in fact guilty of the blemishes in poetry that he himself addresses. I think it was very difficult for Wordsworth to shake off his critics because his argument was a slap in the face for so many of the modern poets, and Wordsworth’s predecessors. To enact everything that the Preface praises, and to avoid the corruptive elements that the Preface dissuades would be a very difficult task for any poet.

All in all (see I wrote a cliché ...), I strongly agree with Wordsworth’s argument, and so far it is my favorite essay on poesy.

Ciao!

Let's make it all for One, and all for Love!

Bryan Adams anybody? K, sorry that was cheesy.

The great thing about this play was its simplicity, as a whole or unit. It indeed used the unities that Dryden dissuaded writers to indulge in. He recognized this hypocritical stance himself in the preface even. Nevertheless, as a reader I found that it worked. I was able to enjoy the dramatic aspect from the interactions between characters, without all the distractions of identifying time, place, and action.

Dryden conveyed the love between Antony and Cleopatra in a very dramatic way, perhaps in accordance to Shakespeare. After all, " All for Love " was written after the Shakespearian account of this historical play. This was very advantageous as Dryden could clean up any of his predecessors mistakes. It is interesting that by following Shakespeare, Dryden puts into action, a piece of argument that he makes in " The Essay ". The argument about how the contemporaries were merely imitating the ancient Greek poets, and because this is the case, they were merely reinventing something already done. Dryden does just that, he merely imitates a play done by Shakespeare.

In terms of the story, and the writing within, it was interesting to note the amount of times either Antony, or Cleopatra used the words 'death' or 'ruins'. Both words were key symbols that foreshadowed their untimely deaths. The portrayal of Antony and Cleopatra, is one of much debate, and It is interesting to see how perplexing the nature of love can be. I enjoyed how static characters such as Alexas and Ventidious found Antony and Cleopatra so foolish, and irrational in thought and action. The character of Octavia was one of amusement as well. She was such a strong character, as her unwillingness to be subordinated by Antony unveiled some of his flaws. She was able to portray herself as the innocent victim, augmented by the pride she had still, for being the wife of an adulterer (Antony). There is a real divide between duty and love; in the end duty is seen as being more practical than love. Antony and Cleopatra are seen as the two characters amiss, and love becomes their ultimate demise.

Ciao

Shakespeare vs. Jonson

I just want to start off by apologizing for my miscalculation of the number of characters within the essay. There are of course four characters, and not three. Neander being the one I missed, or more precisely the one, at the time of my first blog had not yet encountered in the text. Hindering me enough is this tedious tendency of mine to make conclusions before reading a piece of literary work in full. Tssk, tssk! Rrrr, bad habits are hard to quit.

As was brought up briefly in class today Dryden compares and contrasts Shakespeare with Ben Jonson. But I want to go further down the rabbit hole with this comparison. Dryden both acknowledges strengths and weaknesses in the styles of Shakespeare and Jonson. He specifically says that Jonson is “ many times flat, insipid, his comic wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast ”(80). Paradoxically Dryden credits Jonson for his ‘wit’, or rather satire, where he is superior to his contemporaries. Shakespeare on the other hand, is a balanced opposite, for Dryden discredits his use of ‘clenches’ or puns, and praises him for his ability to subordinate satire, and raise imagery through tropes. This imagery was a product that intrinsically came out of Shakespeare’s internal connection with nature “ he looked inwards and found her ” (80). Initially I found it interesting that Jonson according to Dryden was regarded as the model for Classical Poetry. It was perplexing at first, but it makes sense know that because of the external factors (ie. The Restoration), it was Jonson that was more appealing to his colleagues, and not Shakespeare. On an aside, before this course the signifier ‘Ben Jo(h)nson’ elicited an image of a smudge mark in the history of Canadian Track and Field. Thank you John Dryden for alternate signified!

Anyways, although Dryden does not literally declare a love for either of these juxtaposed dichotimies, I feel he sides with Shakespeare. And notably coming back to the idea of mass popularity, progressively over time Shakespeare owns the charts.