TS Heavy Hitters Poll #4: John Donne vs William Blake

holla

i didn't read the rest of this thread after this point, so maybe this has been covered, but you're a crazy person

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 01:53 (21 minutes ago)

you all know how I operate on ILX by now - it's not trolling, but it's not incontrovertible statement of opinion either - consider it a testing of the waters coupled with my own undergraduate leanings - Donne will receive more attention from me as a result of this for sure

dunno how I'd start on Blake because the dude is operating on a level of inspiration that invites an 'all or nothing' response - either I'll say 'yes, he is immutable force of human creativity' or I dive into all his works trying to find apposite signifiers and methods of expression - to briefly compromise, I'll state that the scope and loose organisation of his work is probably the most attractive aspect of his poetry - he has enormous and all-encompassing ambition but the good sense to cluster his manifestos in discrete and approachable fragments which themselves respond to focused analysis - he also isn't afraid to mix his forms - poetry, prose and art - depending upon how each part of the whole needs to be expressed

i appreciate how consistent yr taste is louis

how do you mean? is that sarcasm? or do you mean that was a very lj-esque explanation

no, no. i just like that you know what you like, and why

but the thing is that I DON'T know what I like - ILX especially has changed my mind on things SO much - read some of my early posts and compare! my tone is frequently convinced, but always open to challenge - the dogmatism is more of a throwdown than immutable tapestry

and another thing's for sure: I need to think about Blake a lot harder before giving him any close analysis

you like ambition! dont you? thats what i always got from you

well we all have our staples, and successfully expressed dialogue with the spiritual in poetry is a big thing of mine - blake's personal communion with god is breathtaking to behold, and he states it with such nuance and skill that I'm perfectly happy describing it as ambition rewarded.

so yes, I dig ambition, be it Blake's religious humanism or Donne's highly structured, ornate metaphysics - Blake's rambling and wholly idiosyncratic nature appeals in particular, but that's not to say I can't find enormous worth in both styles, and worths that the other style does not share

(although as I've said, even within that ramble, Blake manages to conjure discrete segments whose power is terrifyingly focused - which is probably my favourite kind of writing)

Dryden's the one major poet from this period whose work I barely know.

By the wayside, Dryden was the heir to a mighty heritage, but his aims, methods and means are no longer seen sympathetically, even when they are viewed understandingly. Those who love him are a vanishingly small minority.

I would count myself among those who may understand him, but cannot love him. Whatever I value most in him is the least characteristic of his work. Just the way it is.

A quick question, Abbott; if you knew nothing about Blake but the text of his poems, would you derive as much pleasure from them? It seems to me you are elevating the poet, but often on grounds apart from his poetry. This is legitimate enough, but it is worth recognizing as a different thing than loving his poems through their own life as poems.

When I read Blake it is usually from the Johnson/Grant-edited Norton Crit edition, or less often the Erdman Complete Poetry & Prose, far more often than facsimiles of his amazing & beautiful handmade books (which I do love & cherish, but sometimes you just want to be able to read black ink on a white page). I mean why I prefer the Norton, too, is it's just easier too lug around and crack open (I took the damn thing camping with me 3x this summer, the time I didn't I felt lonely w/out it).

I think his images are really important, but they are also the #1 way Blake fucks with you. He rearranged the order of his pages, of his images, changed colors, changed themes, from book to book. If you have some idea that you have it figured out, that you know what X text means based on the placement of Y image, there's such a chance he switched it around, or changed it just enough to blow your theory, in another version. (I love this too, about Blake, that you never really know where to stand with him, or where he stands – I think this is why locas like me get these sorts of feelings about the dude.)

If you mean I am reading to much into his bio, well, that's (one reason) why everyone else in my lit classes hated me. I don't know why "death of the author" has been such a forceful center of thought for so long, but I could never really swallow it. Especially with Blake! since in "Milton A Poem" he makes himself a central character, and throws in his wife & his dead brother too. If you can't think about an author's life when considering their work, especially if they make a work that sort of intimately invites you into their life...I don't know, man. I really admire the dude, as a person, as an artist, as a spirit, you know? I think that's ok. But even if he was "MYSTERY AUTHOR" of "ANONYMOUS" who juust put a guy called William Blake in a poem, just like he put a guy called Milton in a poem – if we had no images, or anything, I would still love him! Even if we just had some bonkers thing like "Four Zoas." Though I think this is kind of a silly question, because we DO have his images and we have so many delightful bios of him that are basically rorschachs of their era.

hey abbott if anyone gives you shit for bringing an authors bio into readings of his or her work i got your back

I don't know why "death of the author" has been such a forceful center of thought for so long, but I could never really swallow it.

otm. fwiw i think it's less of a center of thought these days.

By the wayside, Dryden was the heir to a mighty heritage, but his aims, methods and means are no longer seen sympathetically, even when they are viewed understandingly. Those who love him are a vanishingly small minority.

includes me. But it's complicated – I wrote my doctorate on him back in the day. Will probably ramble a little abt him once I've woken up.

So yeah, I do love Dryden, but it's a complicated relationship. I lived with him for abt 5 years, so when I go back now, it's for pleasure, but I'll likely bump into something that makes me think 'I got that wrong' or trips an academic switch in my head. Can make me a little tense.

I do love him, though - dunno if I can say why, clearly. I think the core of it is his delight in it all - in making verse, in trying things out, in building strange ornate structures or rushing along a story, and above all in arguing - love his rhetorical energy and versatility, how he bounces around flipping between reasoned argument and jokes and magpie allusiveness and mock-modesty to win a scrap.

There's all sorts of detail that I enjoy, too - his knack for a good word, the metrical command, how naturally and easily he can hit rhymes in couplets, the syntactical deftness that lets him carry you over multiple lines.

Almost all of this would apply to Donne too, but that shows up the limits of Dryden: Donne's immediate presence & emotional vitality isn't there in Dryden - where Dryden's moving, it tends to be indirect, reserved; and Dryden belongs to this world. Very little spiritual or anguished about him

Dryden was the heir to a mighty heritage, but his aims, methods and means are no longer seen sympathetically, even when they are viewed understandingly.

You can say this about Pope, Swift, Coleridge, Arnold – hell, any English poet.

I think it's more a case with Dryden than almost any of the others that you mention there, tbh. Pope has his catchy couplets, still in popular usage on occasion, but also his po-mo Dunciad (if you will - I won't, but you see what I mean), Swift has Gulliver and his 'savage indignation' (A Modest Proposal), even the madness of A Tale of a Tub sits quite nicely with the literature of doubt and uncertainty, Romantic post-Romantic stuff tends to be fairly easily swallowed, we're still living in an age which values inspiration/newness/individuality etc.

I've always found, despite recognising much of the virtues tos/woof describes, him extremely resistant to sympathetic reading. I like what he does, but I often find myself impressed rather than affectionate towards him. All the others you cite, I find more sympathetic, if not actually 'better'.

I don't know why "death of the author" has been such a forceful center of thought for so long, but I could never really swallow it.

you're in luck Abbott - as far as I know reading & paying close attn to the author's bio is very much back in use as a valid strategy

Was a bit unsure about the 'mighty heritage' myself - didn't know whether that meant English or Classical. If the former, the (then) perceived-as-major poets in the generation before him are now massively unfashionable - Waller, Denham and Cowley. Jonson prob the heaviest hitter who's a direct ancestor; Donne & the metaphysicals already suffering from that 'great wit, awkward verse' rep that afflicts them through to the revival in the last century. The latter's nearer the mark, but he's building, emulating and stealing to create an English trad as much as inheriting.

(btw Abbott, awesome repping for Blake.)

I don't know why "death of the author" has been such a forceful center of thought for so long

It's not this so much for me as, in reading poetry as a poet, I always want to find out what I can learn or derive inspiration from in what I am reading. Therefore, while it is interesting for me to know the poet's biographical details and connect them to the imagery, ideas or tone of the poem, I can't really learn how to be that poet, as a means of incorporating what is good in their work into my own. Their lives are their exclusive property and I can't filch bits of their identity. (Of course, many a young writer tries this tactic, but they look pretty ridiculous trying to be Pound, Kerouac or Edna St. Vincent Millay.)

William Blake would not want you to be him anyway! Inspiration not memory.

I mean, I think since he was criticizing Shakespeare & Milton for taking on Greek & Latin influences, and hoping for a day when "the Daughters of Memory" would become "the Daughters of Inspiration," that is why I think that. I didn't call him or anything.

haha you seem to be very tuned to him!

Agree about Dryden. I used to know an Eng Lit lecturer who (like woof) wrote his doctoral thesis on Dryden and was a massive enthusiast. He got very disheartened that because his students routinely avoided Dryden despite his best advocacy and because the reasons they gave always seemed so utterly predictable and unfair. I doubt he'd have had similar problems with any other "major" poet (post-medieval, anyway). My own (admittedly half-hearted) attempts to engage with Dryden were not a success.

Batter my heart three personed god perfectly illustrates some of my problems as a (partial) Donne dissenter. For me it's too much bravura display. It's all about Donne, really, not God. Herbert, for example, may not match Donne for fireworks but is so much better at conveying religious feeling.

It's all about Donne, really, not God. Herbert, for example, may not match Donne for fireworks but is so much better at conveying religious feeling.

Guess as a starting point I'd tentatively agree. Would say, however, that I prefer fireworks to, for instance, The Collar which I think is brilliantly successful in its intent (and indeed is a great poem). So then you start getting into the question of what religious feeling is, and then when I get there, then I start saying that Donne was one of the greatest explorers and configurers of what religious feeling is, pushing the limits and exploring the boundaries of that feeling, that there has ever been, and so, while I'd agree with the premise, I'd end up saying that even there, Donne is the better poet.

Still haven't voted btw. Finger hovering over Donne, but then I think 'The fire, the fire is falling!', and remember the intensity with which I enjoyed Blake as a teenager.

Pairing Herbert and Donne would have caused some real torment.

Remember being awe-inspired when I first read the Nocturnal Upon St Lucy's Day - love, darkness, rhythmic brilliance, brilliance of imagery in detail and in the whole, and yes, the convoluted wit, in this case reminding me slightly of some of Ben Jonson's poetry. I know it turns some off, but the way that the perspectives turn and slot into place, like an astrolabe, or the right viewing of a masque, is just utterly brilliant.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

donne by a burning bright tiger whisker. always was fond of donne. blake i don't know so well. someday!

i refused to vote in this poll it was impossible

yeah i didnt vote either

the real winner.................................................

..........................................................................................was poetry

Hilarious beatdown:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1981/12/03/there-is-no-penance-due-to-innocence/