MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

ficbot · 06-09-2011, 11:33 AM

Hi DMB

I so appreciate your thoughtful responses! To address a few of your points:

>>>How are you on the Elizabethan and Jacobean poets, in particular Wyatt. Surrey, Raleigh and Donne? (I assume you know Shakespeare's sonnets.) >>>

Those names all ring bells, and I'm sure I've read them, but I can't say they made particular impressions. Most of these authors probably came up in various anthologies I've read "The Palgrave collection, for instance, and several from the Norton people purchased for courses over the years, and which I still have. I don't think I have ever sat down and made a concerted effort with any one author's complete works...

And yes, I have read Shakespeare's sonnets

I enjoyed all the Shakespeare I read except for the histories. With the histories, I found it too hard to keep track of who was who since they all had such similar names (Henry, Richard and John for everyone).

>>>I think Marvell is interesting. And then, of course, there is Milton, thought by many to be the greatest English poet. >>>

I had not considered Marvel, that's a good idea. And of course, Milton is on my to-read list

>>>Did you do any poets of the Restoration period? How about Rochester? I'm a bit surprised you found the Restoration boring. >>>

I enjoyed Pope, and I think Swift was part of that course too, and he wasn't bad. Mostly, what I didn't like was how dated and self-referential everything seemed. Pope would write a poem that was secretly making fun of Swift, and then Swift would write a poem making fun of Pope, and so on. It would be like writing a 500-verse epic poem about Hilary Clinton. It might be interesting to a niche audience now, but in a couple hundred years, you're going to need a lot of footnotes.

I also remember reading Dryden's prefaces and they were all about how if you didn't like the poems, it was because you were too stupid or uneducated or unrefined to properly appreciate them. He just seemed so pompous and arrogant. And I suppose, given what I said above, that they all kind of struck me this way

Plus, we had a super-dull professor and a textbook that had not been updated for 40 years...

06-09-2011, 11:33 AM	#51
ficbot Wizard Posts: 2,409 Karma: 4132096 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Kindle Paperwhite/iOS Kindle App	Hi DMB I so appreciate your thoughtful responses! To address a few of your points: >>>How are you on the Elizabethan and Jacobean poets, in particular Wyatt. Surrey, Raleigh and Donne? (I assume you know Shakespeare's sonnets.) >>> Those names all ring bells, and I'm sure I've read them, but I can't say they made particular impressions. Most of these authors probably came up in various anthologies I've read "The Palgrave collection, for instance, and several from the Norton people purchased for courses over the years, and which I still have. I don't think I have ever sat down and made a concerted effort with any one author's complete works... And yes, I have read Shakespeare's sonnets I enjoyed all the Shakespeare I read except for the histories. With the histories, I found it too hard to keep track of who was who since they all had such similar names (Henry, Richard and John for everyone). >>>I think Marvell is interesting. And then, of course, there is Milton, thought by many to be the greatest English poet. >>> I had not considered Marvel, that's a good idea. And of course, Milton is on my to-read list >>>Did you do any poets of the Restoration period? How about Rochester? I'm a bit surprised you found the Restoration boring. >>> I enjoyed Pope, and I think Swift was part of that course too, and he wasn't bad. Mostly, what I didn't like was how dated and self-referential everything seemed. Pope would write a poem that was secretly making fun of Swift, and then Swift would write a poem making fun of Pope, and so on. It would be like writing a 500-verse epic poem about Hilary Clinton. It might be interesting to a niche audience now, but in a couple hundred years, you're going to need a lot of footnotes. I also remember reading Dryden's prefaces and they were all about how if you didn't like the poems, it was because you were too stupid or uneducated or unrefined to properly appreciate them. He just seemed so pompous and arrogant. And I suppose, given what I said above, that they all kind of struck me this way Plus, we had a super-dull professor and a textbook that had not been updated for 40 years...