Wordsworth and Blake: Foundation, or Interpretation?
Sharing a name with both the authors in this reading is a good omen, right? ...Nope, poetry is still my enemy. This is why I don't believe in omens.
Perhaps the biggest thing that struck me while reading Wordsworth and Blake (aside from the fact that I'd inevitably wind up griping about poetry in my blog) was how quickly the two could go from being on the same page about an issue to providing drastically different viewpoints. Both reading selections had a poem about what's wrong with the world, specifically London, followed immediately by poems on human nature and how it affects the world. Wordsworth denounces London as a cesspool of depraved selfishness in "London: 1802" and then condemns man for causing this by being too callous towards the blessings of nature in "The World Is Too Much with Us." Blake makes the same condemnation in the world in "London," but then follows it up in "The Human Abstract" by saying what I can only interpret as "This is just how humans are and how they have to be, so suck it up." The first couple stanzas sound like Dr. Pangloss wrote them. The two poets' beliefs are close enough to each other to agree on the problem, at least.
I can get an idea of Wordsworth's theology pretty easily; he'll be the first to advocate communing with God through nature. Blake, on the other hand, doesn't stop throwing me for loops. First he writes "The Lamb," that heartwarming little piece about how Jesus loves us. ...Then he goes on in "The Little Vagabond" to say church attendance would go up if they served ale, and that God would be happier to see us drunk. If Blake means to condemn that idea just by implying that it came from a vagabond, he didn't do a very good job. Throw back in "The Human Abstract" and now I question whether he's trying to just state the reality of sin, or imply that it has good purposes, or what. This is a bit too open for interpretation here; Wordsworth is not nearly so vague.
But theological doctrine aside, which makes for better poetry? That which you can interpret to fit into your life easily, or that which has a loud-and-clear message you might not like?
P.S. I commented on Michael and Phillip's posts.
Perhaps the biggest thing that struck me while reading Wordsworth and Blake (aside from the fact that I'd inevitably wind up griping about poetry in my blog) was how quickly the two could go from being on the same page about an issue to providing drastically different viewpoints. Both reading selections had a poem about what's wrong with the world, specifically London, followed immediately by poems on human nature and how it affects the world. Wordsworth denounces London as a cesspool of depraved selfishness in "London: 1802" and then condemns man for causing this by being too callous towards the blessings of nature in "The World Is Too Much with Us." Blake makes the same condemnation in the world in "London," but then follows it up in "The Human Abstract" by saying what I can only interpret as "This is just how humans are and how they have to be, so suck it up." The first couple stanzas sound like Dr. Pangloss wrote them. The two poets' beliefs are close enough to each other to agree on the problem, at least.
I can get an idea of Wordsworth's theology pretty easily; he'll be the first to advocate communing with God through nature. Blake, on the other hand, doesn't stop throwing me for loops. First he writes "The Lamb," that heartwarming little piece about how Jesus loves us. ...Then he goes on in "The Little Vagabond" to say church attendance would go up if they served ale, and that God would be happier to see us drunk. If Blake means to condemn that idea just by implying that it came from a vagabond, he didn't do a very good job. Throw back in "The Human Abstract" and now I question whether he's trying to just state the reality of sin, or imply that it has good purposes, or what. This is a bit too open for interpretation here; Wordsworth is not nearly so vague.
But theological doctrine aside, which makes for better poetry? That which you can interpret to fit into your life easily, or that which has a loud-and-clear message you might not like?
P.S. I commented on Michael and Phillip's posts.
I think that is why I don't like poetry all that much either. Because sometimes I feel like the poets are only being vague or that they are writing to a specific person all of the time. I can't keep up!!
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends on the situation. Take the Books of Poetry in the Bible for example. Most of the Psalms have a message that you can fit into your life easily, however Proverbs has a lot of in-your-face messages that could get people riled up (even if it is the truth). Both have their strengths, one just needs to be careful how they're used.
ReplyDelete