This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C11FFA.DCAD1420
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Steve:
A very interesting topic. I'm glad you brought it up.
I've taken one of those courses. The one on Dante. It was great but I =
was frustrated through not being able to ask questions and thereby =
understand the instructors' (Cook and Herzman) positions better. In =
this case I will relieve the frustration a little by throwing the =
questions back to you, thereby incurring the remark "How the hell =
should I know?".
Dr. Perl considers Yeats a Modernist. I guess this is because of the =
symbolist/Mellarme link. I had thought that Yeats went from symbolism =
to the occult and would not be thought of as a mainline Modernist. An =
essential germ and greatly admired by the Modernists but prefatory and =
not Modern. I think of the late Yeats as very mystic although Nancy has =
previously taken exception to this.
Was it Yeats' personal life that is being referred back to in the poem =
or is it his developing intellectual life? The poem could be viewed as =
illustrative of Yeats move from symbolism to the mystic.. Yeats was =
constantly revising his work and when taken to task for this stated that =
"It is myself I remake".??? see Walter Starkie's introduction to "The =
Celtic Twilight and a selection of early poems" Yeats was very much =
into the occult; an anathema to mainline modernists. This interest in =
the occult makes Yeat's spiritual and intellectual life perhaps of more =
interest in reading his poetry than that set of inter-personal relations =
that we think of as a "personal life". I think it would be essential =
for a critic to separate Yeat's spiritual life from his personal life. =
Yeats felt that his study of Walter Savage Landor was a watershed in his =
spiritual and intellectual life. Dr. Perl ignores Landor in your =
excerpt.
Where does Dr. Perl get the idea that synthesis might apply to =
Modernism? This sounds like an intellectual straw man. I think that =
one must differentiate between synergism as a goal of the authors and =
synergism as a result of critical analysis. Modernism was often =
deliberately jarring and disruptive. It was the intent of the authors =
to break the intellectual complacency of the Victorians. To break away =
from the rhetorical writing of poetry into a new "Modern" way. How to =
represent the "Real" was one of the many things that they struggled =
with on a highly individual basis. =20
Does "Modernism" mean the same to today's critics as it did to the =
writers involved? TSE and Pound (probably mostly Pound) went around =
adjudging poets as "modern" or not but the poets were much too =
independent too be forced into a bag. A case in point is D.H. Lawrence =
who is at once referred to as a "Georgian" (another group of =
nongroupies) and "Modernist". Lawrence probably didn't care what the =
label was as long as the intellectually rigorous read his work. In your =
brief excerpt Dr. Perl seems to blur between Modernism as a =
retrospective term of critics and as a set of operating guidelines for =
the Modernist poet.
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM, USA =20
------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C11FFA.DCAD1420
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Steve:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A very interesting topic. I'm glad you brought =
it=20
up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I've taken one of those =
courses. The one=20
on Dante. It was great but I was frustrated through not being able =
to ask=20
questions and thereby understand the instructors' (Cook and Herzman) =
positions=20
better. In this case I will relieve the frustration a little by =
throwing=20
the questions back to you, thereby incurring the remark "How =
the hell=20
should I know?".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dr. Perl considers Yeats a =
Modernist. I=20
guess this is because of the symbolist/Mellarme link. I had =
thought=20
that Yeats went from symbolism to the occult and would not be thought of =
as a mainline Modernist. An essential germ and greatly =
admired by=20
the Modernists but prefatory and not Modern. I think of the late =
Yeats as=20
very mystic although Nancy has previously taken exception to =
this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Was it Yeats' personal life =
that is being=20
referred back to in the poem or is it his developing intellectual=20
life? The poem could be viewed as illustrative of Yeats move from=20
symbolism to the mystic.. Yeats was constantly revising his work =
and when=20
taken to task for this stated that "It is myself I remake".??? =
see=20
Walter Starkie's introduction to "The Celtic Twilight and a =
selection of=20
early poems" Yeats was very much into the occult; an anathema =
to=20
mainline modernists. This interest in the occult makes Yeat's =
spiritual=20
and intellectual life perhaps of more interest in reading his poetry =
than that=20
set of inter-personal relations that we think of as a "personal=20
life". I think it would be essential for a critic to separate =
Yeat's=20
spiritual life from his personal life. Yeats felt that his study =
of Walter=20
Savage Landor was a watershed in his spiritual and intellectual =
life. Dr.=20
Perl ignores Landor in your excerpt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Where does Dr. Perl get the idea =
that synthesis=20
might apply to Modernism? This sounds like an intellectual straw=20
man. I think that one must differentiate between synergism as a =
goal of=20
the authors and synergism as a result of critical analysis. =
Modernism was=20
often deliberately jarring and disruptive. It was the intent of =
the=20
authors to break the intellectual complacency of the Victorians. =
To break=20
away from the rhetorical writing of poetry into a new "Modern" =
way. How to represent the "Real" was one of the =
many=20
things that they struggled with on a highly individual =
basis. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Does "Modernism" mean the =
same to=20
today's critics as it did to the writers involved? TSE and Pound =
(probably=20
mostly Pound) went around adjudging poets as "modern" or not =
but the=20
poets were much too independent too be forced into a bag. A case =
in point=20
is D.H. Lawrence who is at once referred to as a "Georgian" =
(another=20
group of nongroupies) and "Modernist". Lawrence probably =
didn't=20
care what the label was as long as the intellectually rigorous read his=20
work. In your brief excerpt Dr. Perl seems to blur between =
Modernism=20
as a retrospective term of critics and as a set of operating =
guidelines=20
for the Modernist poet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Rick Seddon</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>McIntosh, NM, USA =20
</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C11FFA.DCAD1420--
|
