“What are men compared to rocks and mountains?” These famous lines from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813) resonate with many of the Romantics’ ideologies. Nature is nature; it simply is. Man, on the other hand, attempts to create an original or simply exist, and fails exceedingly. So why is there all this narcissism? From Blake to Wordsworth, these men proclaim themselves to be a “Poetic Genius.” They adore the outstanding ability of the natural world but turn into self-centered pricks because supposedly they alone can decipher nature or create an original. Wordsworth, for instance, believes that the poet is the translator for common man because it takes a particular talent (that he so happens to posses). However, the common man who he is speaking to does not care about poetry, so Wordsworth creates his own audience and redefines the common man. DeQuincy’s narcissism is also clearly present in his essay Confessions of an English Opium Eater. He is marginalized from even the marginalized Romantics like Wordsworth. His “gutter punk” persona seems to be crying out, “I am different! Pay attention to me!” so he creates a new group in society.
Are these Romantics right to be understood as better, smarter people? The complexities of these Romantic works require a great deal of interpretation and decipherability. I admit that I needed someone else to tell me what they were trying to say. These Romantics had a different view of the world, but the question still remains is different the equivalent of better? The Romantics were able to transcend outside of themselves through logic. (Think Kant diagram.) Nature, nonetheless, cannot do this. It cannot extend beyond itself but merely regenerate what once was. Does logic go against nature? If so, then it is harder to go against one’s nature. What is nature compared to Man?*
*Seen in Percy Shelley's "Mont Blanc." The poet puts his perceptions onto the mountain, which is then reflected to himself. In the beginning of the poem, it seems as if the mountain is putting meaning on the person, but this notion is flipped by the end.
While I agree with your words stating that most of the mentioned poets are arrogant and narcissistic, I wonder if any of us would outwardly notice or consciously think on the many aspects of nature that they bring up in their writing.
ReplyDeleteIt is a little difficult to describe Nature as beautiful, if the word beautiful did not exist, right?
I probably should have expanded this post a little longer. What I was trying to say is that perhaps this narcissism is deserved. The Romantics are the ones that noticed different occurrences in nature others would not. But it is ironic that the Romantics use nature as the epitome, because they are the ones that put all this meaning on nature, nature cannot do this for itself. Like you said, man created the word beautiful. So what is nature compared to man?
ReplyDeleteSorry to butt in guys :)
ReplyDeleteI feel that the arrogance spoken of is not so much deserved but actually required to write poetry of this gravity. I'm afraid it's kind of 'chicken and egg theory' here but it is upon reflection that we interpret the text as we do.
or maybe the arrogance is in us.
sorry i'm kind of thinking as I'm writing, but we're not even sure if these poets meant for us to interpret their works in the manner that we do. maybe.
So what is nature compared to man?
perception. everyone loves a waterfall but no one wants to go over the falls. to me it seems romantics epitomized nature as a mental process, if i've answered the question of nature compared to man, the question I ponder is, did the Romantics really perceive nature the way they wrote it down? Or did they twist their minds around to try and write a new view of the world around them? and is this twisting natural or unnatural?